How Good Are the Thompson Twins?

02 Thursday Feb 2023

Tags

amen thompson, ausar thompson, cameron boozer, jayden quaintance

Amen and Ausar Thompson are taking a unique path to the NBA with Overtime Elite, and have generated enough hype to currently be rated #3 and #4 on ESPN’s board.

Their selling point is straightforward: they are athletic 6’7 players who stuff the statsheet in a way similar to Andre Iguodala. But a direct statistical comparison to Iggy does not make sense, because at their age he was the best player on Arizona playing against major conference NCAA competition.

Overtime Elite plays against high level high school competition. The Thompsons’ team is 12-1 and they are the two best players in the league, but they are also college sophomore aged competing against high school competition. Given how steep the age curve is from ages 16-18 to 20, it is incredibly difficult to estimate how this compares to NCAA performance.

But let’s see how they compare to some of their peers, to get a feel for what they are going up against. They are currently 6th and 7th in scoring in the league, this is how their overall numbers compare to the top 5. For HS players recruiting rank is from 247sports:

Note that this minutes are not adjusted per minute or possession, and the Thompsons do play fewer minutes than these players which hurts their bulk output. And the Thompsons are clearly the best players of the bunch, as they do have a more well rounded output than most of these players while playing for the best team in the league.

But the downside is they are not competing against likely 2024 lottery picks. The top two scorers aren’t even ranked in the top 100 in the current high school senior class. Nobody is ranked in the top 25, and the highest ranked player Jayden Quaintance is a young sophomore who is 4.5 entire years younger than them.

As for the 18 year old players, it is plausible they are undervalued in recruiting and sneak into round 1. But for better or worse look like 2nd round/UDFA types with Quaintance being the one other serious prospect on this list.

From the #’s, the Thompsons appear to be clearly better than Quaintance, but not to a dramatic extent. Once you consider the gargantuan age gap at a steep part of the age curve, it should be fairly obvious that Quaintance is the best prospect in this league.

It is likely Quaintance is underrated at #30 on 247sports and #27 ESPN, and it is plausible that he is even the 3rd best prospect in 2025 class behind Cam Boozer and Cooper Flagg as this is highly impressive production against older players.

Conversely, it is worth pondering if two top 5 picks should be destroying this level of competition more extremely than this. Sharing touches is likely holding them back to some extent, but their minute totals are low enough such that only about half of their minutes should be together if rotations are staggered.

And we did get a brief glimpse of how a true star prospect performs in this league. Cam Boozer who is a week younger than Quaintance and 4.5 years younger than the Thompsons played two games against YNG Dreamerz who are 9-2 and Cold Hearts who are 4-7. The Thompsons’ City Reapers squad has played these teams collectively 5 times out of their 13 total games, and their only loss of the season came against YNG Dreamerz.

Boozer posted a couple of monster stat lines in both games, including 28/20/5 in a 14 point win vs the Dreamerz. Let’s average out his numbers between the two games and compare it with the Thompsons:

It’s a joke how dominant Boozer was. He had some slight turnover issues, but otherwise blows the Thompsons out of the water in spite of being relatively infant aged. Not only does he get more dunks and rebounds than them combined, but he also appears to be a much better shooter. Boozer 3/8 3P and 13/13 FT, which is a major area of struggle for the twins with Ausar making 24.3% 3P 62.4% FT and Amen 22.4% 3P 65.5% FT on the season.

Granted, it’s only two games. But if you had to pick two stars to build an OTE team around, and the choices were Boozer and Quaintance vs Amen and Ausar, that is a difficult choice. And it cannot be overstated how ridiculous it is that this is even close given the massive disparity in age.

As an aside– this is incredibly exciting for the 2026 draft. Cam Boozer continues to look like a GOAT-ish prospect. Even though he is much further away from being NBA ready which gives more time for things to go wrong, I would still pick him over Victor Wembanyama because he fits such a higher floor mold and it is difficult to recall a 15 year old ever showing this much promise. And with Cooper Flagg looking like a formidable #2, and a guy like Quaintance lurking on the fringes of the top 25. There is serious potential for 2026 to go down as the best draft ever if things go well.

Back to the Thompsons

It is not so thrilling that most of the guys they are beating up on are much younger + fringey prospects, and they aren’t clearly outclassing the actual prospects who are far younger than them.

Of course this does not mean that they cannot succeed in their own rite. The 2023 draft gets so weak after Wemby and Scoot, it is plausible that their OTE production translates better than expected and they turn out to justify top 4 selections in the draft. But it is not sharp to bet on this happening.

The best way to predict a prospect’s upside is with proven performance competing against their peers or more difficult competition. The Thompsons have yet to do anything but beat up on high school kids. Without any precedent of 20 year olds going from high school competition to NBA, it is incredibly risky to bet on them succeeding in the NBA, and betting on them in the top 5 is sheer lunacy.

Even without the competition concerns, there are concerns about their mold. They are listed at 6’7 with a 6’9 wingspan for Amen and 6’10 for Ausar. But if they officially measure at 6’6 with 6’9 wingspan, those are SG dimensions for two players who likely have broken shots. It would be easier to stomach these warts with confidence that they are actually good in their good areas, but it is impossible to be confident without having any real test.

In general, it would be more efficient for teams to pass on players who shied away from facing real competition. James Wiseman left the NCAA after 3 good games and has been a disaster for the Warriors. Shaedon Sharpe never played for UK, and while he is still very young the early NBA returns are not great as he has arguably been the worst player in the league as a rookie. And now instead of playing any proven route of NCAA, G-League, or international, the Thompsons have chosen to see if they can beat up 100 kindergarteners.

How Good Are the Thompsons?

How can anybody know? There is definitely some appeal there but there is no real way to estimate its magnitude with any accuracy.

More front offices should adopt the viewpoint if you aren’t going to prove yourself vs. real competition, you aren’t going on their draft board. Far too many GM’s get seduced by the appeal of the mystery box, when mystery boxes tend to have tickets to a crappy comedy club much more frequently than a boat.

And frankly it’s a waste of energy to even try to figure it out. You can watch every minute of every OTE game and learn absolutely nothing from seeing a twin blow by a 17 year old three star prospect and dunk on him. It simply is not relevant to ability to perform at the NBA level.

At this point, my inclination is to make a special “Don’t know, don’t care” tier for the Thompsons and save my analytical energy for actual prospects. Based on the hype to evidence of goodness ratio, it seems impossible they will be undervalued in the draft. So what difference does it make if they should actually be ranked 10th or 20th or 50th? I wouldn’t pick them and it isn’t necessary to watch low tier basketball to try and elaborate further.

The efficient thing to do is to cross them off draft boards and let somebody else take the gamble, while focusing on scouting the players who are actually performing against a fair level of competition.

The Downside of Upside

01 Wednesday Feb 2023

Posted by deanondraft in Miscellaneous

≈ 5 Comments

Traditional NBA draft wisdom dictates that teams should place a large emphasis on prospect upside. Championship runs are typically driven by star players, and stars are rarely available in trade or free agency. The draft is the best place to gamble on star upside, so why not roll the dice and hope to get lucky on a high risk, high reward prospect over a presumed solid rotation player?

Kuminga over Franz

The best recent example of this logic failing was in 2021 when the Warriors drafted Jonathan Kuminga 7th overall over Franz Wagner. Kuminga had perceived higher upside due to his elite frame and athleticism which Franz sorely lacked. But Kuminga was coming off a mediocre season for G-League ignite, whereas Franz was elite for Michigan.

And not only was Franz elite, but he was elite in every aspect necessary for NBA success. He was the only non-top 4 prospect that I have ever perceived as unbustable. His only real concerns were he did not rack up points and rebounds at Michigan like you would expect from a traditional star wing, which seemingly limited his upside. My favorite NBA comparison for him was Otto Porter Jr.

Conversely, Kuminga had flags on flags on flags. His handle and shooting were subpar. His defensive IQ was questionable. He had questions regarding his work ethic and the company he kept. And while he was listed as one of the youngest players in the draft, there were questions about whether he was actually his listed age.

There were loads of questions marks that needed to go his way to succeed. It is like he needed 5 or 6 different coinflips to fulfill his upside, which is not great odds for a mid-lottery pick (1.5-3%).

And even then that still may only amount to a fringe all-star like Jaylen Brown. To be a top 5 MVP candidate perhaps he needed 9 or 10 successful coinflips to fulfill that upside (0.1-0.2%). It’s impossible to estimate the exact percentage odds, but this should be a basic framework for visualizing upside tails. The more question marks a player has, the more coinflips need to be parlayed for his upside to be hit.

For the sake of argument, let’s there are 9 high leverage coinflips that determine Kuminga’s outcome. 9 successful flips yield 1st team all NBA (0.2%), 8 yield Jaylen Brown (1.8%), 7 yield an average starter (7%), 6 yields an average rotation player (16%), and 5 yields fringe rotation (25%), and 4 or less is a replacement player or bust (50%).

What is particularly frustrating how much more likely middle ground outcomes which teases enough hope of potential getting fulfilled are (48%) than actually being an all-star (2%). Granted these percentages are conjecture and conceivably could be harsh– but the idea is that by parlaying too many things that need to go right for upside to hit, you are left with a poor range of outcomes.

NBA Teams Err on Side of Sunk Cost Fallacy

Andrew Wiggins disappointed in his first few NBA seasons for a #1 overall pick, but not enough to stop the Timberwolves from extending him for 5 years @ $146.5 million. Then when he continued to disappoint, they paid a 1st round pick (that was coincidentally used on Kuminga) to swap him for D’Angelo Russell. His redemption arc in Golden State ultimately made this extension not bad value for his new team, but he nevertheless signed his next extension for a more economical 4/109 in spite of a significant cap increase coming.

Phoenix recently re-signed DeAndre Ayton for 4/133, only to watch their talented but enigmatic player regress in the first season of his new deal. Atlanta traded picks #8, 17, and 35 to move up in the draft for DeAndre Hunter, and then committed 4/90 to essentially a 25 y/o replacement level player. Zion Williamson got 5/193 after playing a total of 85 games in his first 3 seasons.

NBA teams regularly fall victim to sunk cost fallacy. They will continue to invest in the upside of their prospects so long as they don’t completely bust. This makes it dangerous to gamble on upside players who need too many things to go right to fulfill their upside.

Right now Kuminga is in this zone of mediocrity where he has shown enough potential to maintain intrigue, but he may never actually be a useful NBA player. It would not be a surprise if he gets overpaid in his first major contract, and then fails to live up to the value.

But what about Giannis?

Once in a while a mystery box prospect will grow two inches, fill out from a skinny kid into an explosive tank, and make major leaps in his game every season and become Giannis. But it may be another 100+ drafts before we see another young + toolsy mystery box succeed like him. Much more commonly you end up with either a bust, or a somewhat useful but flawed player who the team continues to over-invest in.

And as great as it is to hit on a Giannis in the mid-1st, it is even better to land a Nikola Jokic in the mid-2nd. Jokic required a much less valuable pick, and based on pre-draft info he clearly had a better median outcome than Giannis.

Jokic slid a full round later than Giannis due to his perceived lack of upside in spite of having excellent performance as a teenager in the Adriatic League, while Giannis struggled in his small samples of lower Greek Divisions. Yet they have had similarly valuable NBA careers.

Given the superior cost efficiency of Jokic and that no mystery box has provided close to the value of Giannis, it is difficult to argue that pure upside swings actually offer more upside than perceived low upside players who are clearly good.

The Best Predictor of Upside is Floor

Looking back at Franz Wagner, there were such few questions marks about his game. He had been shooting 80%+ from the line since he was 15 years old. He had elite wing dimensions, excellent lateral mobility, and his defense was fundamentally near perfect. He could handle and pass and had a pristine basketball IQ. The only real question was how much offense could he create in the NBA as a 19.2 usage college player who averaged 12.5 points as a sophomore.

The answer turned out to be as good as anybody could have hoped, as he is now a 24.4 usage NBA player averaging 19.9 pts on 59.7% at 21 years old. The odds of this happening based on pre-draft info seemed fairly low, but he did show competent NCAA penetration with excellent coordination to step through defenses. In tandem with his skill level and basketball IQ, he was able to succeed at this in the NBA much better and faster than expected.

Given how awesome he was in all other aspects of the game, perhaps this should not be such a large surprise. Regardless, it is just one thing that went unexpectedly right and suddenly he is looking like a future star.

Consider all of the aforementioned points that needed to go right for a prospect like Kuminga to even become a Jaylen Brown type. After *one* point that went right for Franz, he is now rated higher than Jaylen in metrics such as EPM (+3.6 vs 2.8) and RAPTOR (+3.2 vs +0.2). Also Haralabos Voulgaris has mentioned the model he used to make millions betting on the NBA rated Franz 15th in the league.

There are other metrics that rate Brown higher, so it is not crystal clear that Franz is the better player at this time. But he is 5 years younger at age 21 vs 26, and it is only a matter of time before Franz becomes the clearly superior player.

This is the magic of having a high floor. A quality role player may only need one or two things to go right to become a star. And it is more comfortable to pay to extend a young player who is already valuable. If Franz “only” peaked as a pre-injury version of Otto Porter Jr, that would still be a great return on a mid-lottery pick. Even if he disappointed and hit my floor comp of Mikal Bridges, you’re still getting a solid guy. Nobody objected to Phoenix extending Mikal for 4/90.

Why is Floor so Commonly Underrated?

The main issue is that draft consensus is bad at estimating floor. Older prospects who simply aren’t good enough for the NBA often get the “high floor” label. Then when they bust, it makes the label seem meaningless. If high floor and high ceiling players both are capable of busting, why not just swing for the upside fences?

In reality, high floor should mean high confidence that a prospect will be a useful NBA player. And high confidence that a prospect will be a useful NBA player strongly correlates with that player having a high upside. Younger prospects will typically have higher error bars in both directions.

It’s not always a perfect correlation. There are players who have higher error bars due to being obviously talented but swing heavily based on murky shooting and defense outcomes. Scottie Barnes and Alperen Sengun are two examples of this from 2021. But they still had high floors in their own rites– Sengun has been disappointing at both shooting and defense and still appears to be a steal at 16th overall.

Bottom Line

Draft concepts such as floor and ceiling are often applied inaccurately and lead to inefficient decision making. But if one of them should be given more weight when accurately measured– it is floor.

It is difficult to trump a high confidence that a prospect will be a valuable NBA player. That way you maximize outcomes where you get positive value out of a pick, and minimize outcomes where you end up committing longterm money and a significant role on the team on a player who never provides close to the desired outcome.

And most importantly, confidence in a prospect’s ability to be valuable in the NBA is one of the best predictors of upside as well.

It can be fun to imagine “what if everything goes perfectly in this prospect’s development,” but outside of Giannis this essentially never happens. Flaws from a young age often persist through a player’s prime, at least to some non-trivial extent. It is far more efficient to focus on the likely outcomes.

Upside deserves some consideration, but not as much as it commonly receives. Much like construction of a building, the foundation of efficient draft analysis starts at the floor.

Jalen Green vs. Franz Wagner: How Much Should Creation Be Valued?

03 Saturday Jul 2021

Posted by deanondraft in Uncategorized

≈ 11 Comments

Tags

franz wagner, jalen green

Shot creation is a vital part of basketball, as any NBA offense needs at least one guy who can be relied on to create offense for the team off the dribble.

But at the same time, it is prone to being overrated by casual fans who can discern scoring more easily than nuanced abilities such as passing, defense, and efficiency.

Let’s explore the topic through the lens of two polar opposite prospects– Jalen Green whose value largely centers around shot creation, and Franz Wagner who offers everything but volume scoring.

Jalen Green

Green’s appeal can be summarized with this one highlight where he crosses his defender and then dunks on 3 help defenders shortly after turning 19. He is exceptionally athletic and shows scoring potential rarely seen that young. He also showed promise as a jump shooter, making 35.8% 3P and 78.6% FT in his small shooting sample for G League Ignite.

But otherwise he is full of warts. He did not officially measure, but is likely around 6’5″ with a 6’8″ wingspan and a thin frame. He is a small SG who can only guard 1.5 positions, and not particularly well as his effort and fundamentals are both lackluster. And since he is being drafted to score and most of his energy will be devoted to doing so, he is not a strong bet to make major improvements on defense. He isn’t drawing dead to be a neutral or better defensive player in the NBA, but he is a clear underdog.

Further, he is not much of a passer averaging barely more assists (2.8) than turnovers (2.7), as he is clearly a score first guard. Passing is a significant part of creation, and being a non-elite passer puts a cap on his offensive upside. It also likely necessitates that he plays next to another distributor, which tends to skew small and further hurts the defense.

In terms of comps, Zach LaVine or Devin Booker are the guys that Green matches the most closely. Perhaps there is wiggle room for him to be slightly better than those guys, but it is difficult to find a clear example historically.

Vince Carter would be the highly optimistic comp, but he was approximately 1″ taller, 3″ longer, and much stronger and more capable of matching up with a wider range of opponents. That’s a significant enough difference in size such that it’s not a reasonable comparison to make.

Historically there is a cap on the upside of little guys who aren’t great passers, and it’s right around the Booker or LaVine level.

Franz Wagner

Franz lacks the explosive athleticism of Green as well as the volume scoring, as he posted a pedestrian 19.2 usage rate as a sophomore for Michigan.

But otherwise he is absolutely dripping with goodness. This lottery is loaded with good passers, but Franz has the best assist:TOV of the entire crop:

Prospect	Height	Age	AST%	AST:TOV
Franz	6’9	19.3	17.3	2.33
Davion	6’1	22.3	27.7	2.26
Giddey	6’8	18.2	36.3	2.25
Barnes	6’8	19.4	31.7	1.66
Suggs	6’4	19.6	23.7	1.55
Mobley	7’0	19.5	14.2	1.07
Green	6’5	18.9	13.5	1.05
Cade	6’8	19.3	20.4	0.86

He is better than Giddey who is a historically good passing prospect. He is above Davion who is 3 years younger, 8 inches shorter, and inexplicably projected to get picked higher than him. He is about 50% higher than Barnes and Suggs who are the same age and very good passing prospects. And he nearly 3x’s the rate of Mr. Cunningham, the consensus #1 overall point forward.

He has a lower volume of creation for both himself and teammates than most of these guys, but his turnover rate is microscopic. And this embodies Franz in a nutshell– the guy almost *never* makes mistakes. And even though his volume is low, he is not racking up easy assists– he often finds the big for a layup with an impressive wraparound pass off the dribble.

His lack of mistakes is also apparent in his defensive play. He moves his feet about as well as any 19 year old prospect ever, which is especially valuable given his excellent dimensions at 6’9″ with 7’0″ wingspan. He is also a highly intelligent defender and rarely makes mistakes on this end, and it shows in his ridiculous on/off splits:

Michigan had the #4 defense in the NCAA, and Franz was a heavy driving force behind their success.

This doesn’t necessarily mean he will be a generational NBA defensive player, as his lack of strength and athleticism led to pedestrian rebounding. But he is going to be good on this end and possibly excellent.

He only made 32.5% from 3 in NCAA, but he shot a decent rate of 3PA and made 83.5% FT. He should develop NBA 3 point range in due time.

And he isn’t a slouch at creating. He has a competent handle, and uses smooth footwork to step through seams in the defense and finish. Now let’s get on to comps:

Otto Porter

Porter and Franz are physically similar hyper-efficient wings with a similar statistical profiles in college:

	Age	USG	ORtg	ORB%	DRB%	AST%	A:TO	STL%	BLK%	FTr
Franz	19.3	19.2	119.5	2.9	19.6	17.3	2.33	2.3	3.2	0.304
Otto	19.6	23.4	118.8	6.7	19	18.5	1.79	3.3	3	0.449

At a glance, Otto seems slightly better across the board. But if we dig deeper, he has a few fake advantages over Franz. He has a significantly better steal rate, except everybody on Georgetown racked up steals whereas Juwan Howard massively suppresses steal rates of everybody who comes to Michigan:

Player	Stl% for Other Coach	Stl% for Juwan	Difference
Zavier Simpson	2.9	1.7	-41.4%
Isaiah Livers	1.6	1	-37.5%
Mike Smith	2.3	0.9	-60.9%
Chaundee Brown	1.1	0.4	-63.6%
Eli Brooks	1.8	1.7	-5.6%
David DeJulius	1.7	1.2	-29.4%
Jon Teske	2	2.1	5.0%
Average	1.9	1.3	-33.3%

Collectively Franz got 29.1% of his team’s steals vs 23.8% for Otto in spite of playing a slightly lower % of his team’s total minutes (15.8% vs 16.9%). He likely would have had a 3%+ steal rate playing for an ordinary college defense.

Otto has a slightly higher assist rate, but Georgetown ran the Princeton offense where *everybody* gets a boost to assists. He had a lower assist rate than starting center Nate Lubick (20.1%) while fellow frontcourt mates Nate Lubick (14.7%), Mikael Hopkins (13.7%), and Greg Whittington (13.2%) weren’t too far behind.

Meanwhile Franz had a higher assist rate than everybody but PG Mike Smith, and among frontcourt players only Isaiah Livers (11.6%) was in double digits. In tandem with his higher assist:TOV ratio, it seems reasonable to say that Franz was the better passer at the same age.

While Otto did have the slightly higher usage, Franz created his own shot at the rim in the halfcourt more frequently (0.99 per 40 vs 0.40). And while Franz ORtg doesn’t fully justify the the usage gap, Michigan did face better defenses by 3.6 pts per 100 and Otto shot 42.2% from 3 vs 34.3% from Franz. But if you look at their sum shooting stats from both years in school, Franz has the slightly better signal:

	2P%	3PA/100	3P%	FT%
Otto	0.55	4.7	0.355	0.751
Franz	0.583	8	0.325	0.835

Eventually Otto developed into a 40%+ 3 point shooter and Franz is a clear underdog to catch him here, but he clearly has upside based on his FT% and 3PA rate.

Physically, Franz is ~0.5″ taller and Otto is ~1.5″ longer, and neither are explosive athletes. Franz was listed 15 pounds heavier (220 vs 205), and didn’t measure at the combine while Otto measured underweight at 197. In spite of that, Otto showed more willingness to mix it up on the offensive glass and drew more free throws, which is his one clear advantage over Franz based on the numbers.

Otto was an incredibly rare prospect, but after digging in Franz is similarly rare with a similar distribution of strengths and weaknesses. Both guys showed a unique ability to dominate with dimensions and outlier avoidance of mistakes. Porter is THE comp for Franz.

The next best comp is likely Mikal Bridges:

	Age	USG	ORtg	ORB%	DRB%	AST%	A:TO	STL%	BLK%
Franz	19.3	19.2	119.5	2.9	19.6	17.3	2.33	2.3	3.2
Mikal	19.3	14.4	125.2	5.7	12.4	7.5	1.46	3.1	3.6

Make no mistake about it– Franz is just better than Mikal at the same age as he is 3″ taller with better defense and more creation ability and no substantial advantages for Mikal.

Mikal eventually developed into a good shooter which is not guaranteed for Franz, but it is difficult to see how his shooting is bad enough to such that he is not at least as good as Mikal based on his passing, defense, creation, and size advantages.

Bridges is a good floor comp, although ultimately Franz is clearly better and closer to Otto Porter.

Otto Porter vs Devin Booker

If we assume that Franz is the next Otto and Green is the next Booker, then who should be valued higher?

The casual fan likely will say Booker because you need a star who can create to be an elite team. But there are a few reasons to believe otherwise

Lineup Friction

Once you have one undersized, one dimensional isolation scorer, there is no value in having another. Whereas you cannot have enough Otto Porters. You can comfortably play a lineup with 3 Otto Porters or maybe even 4 in certain occasions, as long as there is one star playmaker to facilitate the offense.

Further, if you have an actual superstar like LeBron or Luka or Giannis, you are better off pairing them with an Otto Porter than a Booker or LaVine. LeBron has shown that he provides maximum value surrounded by efficient role players. Then when he teamed up with Chris Bosh and Dwyane Wade in Miami, adjusted plus minus essentially said that they were going to break NBA basketball. But because of their poor synergy, they were not even better than LeBron’s final 2 years in Cleveland in their first season together.

The 73 win Golden State Warriors were great because they had one elite creator in Stephen Curry and 3 excellent role players in Klay Thompson, Draymond Green, and Andre Iguodala who provided significant value without needing the ball. Harrison Barnes was a decent enough 5th wheel to round out the death lineup since he is big enough to match up physically with most opponents and capable of making open shots.

Let’s say we replace Barnes with a LaVine or Booker. That screws the defense, because it gives opponents 2 little guys to hunt and makes the overall lack of size weigh heavier. Second, it is questionable how much it helps the offense, because do you really want an isolation scorer taking away 3PA from Steph and Klay? Devin Booker’s career high eFG% is 54.4%, and the Warriors as a team shot 56.3% when they won 73.

But if you replace Barnes with Porter, you get a guy who fits the system and makes the team even more overpowered by doing everything Barnes did with much greater efficiency.

If you really want to break the NBA, you need to load up on elite well rounded role players. Isolation scorers provide diminishing returns and cap team level upside with too many of them

Creation is important but it is not scarce

There are diminishing returns to having too many shot creators, but it is still necessary to have at least one guy to be competitive. There is some value to having a Russell Westbrook keep your team out of the basement even if it results in a round 1 playoff loss.

But how many teams are sorely missing a shot creator and need a Booker type more than a Porter type? Looking at this year’s playoffs, the obvious answer is Philadelphia as they were sorely missing a perimeter creator which played a large role in their upset loss to the Hawks. After that, the Knicks could have used somebody other than Julius Randle to get buckets, although a Devin Booker still likely would not be enough to get them out of round 1.

But other than that? Forgetting injuries, the Nets obviously need a Porter type role player more than another star scorer. Ditto for the Bucks with Giannis, Middleton, and Jrue. Hawks already have Trae. You could argue that the Heat need more than Bam and Jimmy, but they were good enough to make the finals last year. Celtics have Tatum and Brown to create and a lineup with 3 big wings can create some interesting defensive possibilities. Wiz clearly need a role playing wing with two small creators in Russ and Beal.

Utah has Conley + Mitchell but could use an upgrade on Bojan or O’Neale. Suns already have 1 Devin Booker, no room for another. Nuggets already have Murray and Jokic. Clippers have PG and Kawhi to create and could use a Morris/Mann upgrade. Mavs have Luka. Blazers have Dame and CJ. Lakers have LeBron and AD. Grizzlies have Ja Morant.

Essentially 14 of 16 playoff teams already have sufficient creation and could use an elite role playing wing more than an undersized volume scoring SG. And even going slightly lower. The Warriors already have Steph and Klay, Spurs have Dejounte and DeRozan, Kings have Fox, Buddy, and Haliburton, Pelicans have Zion and Ingram, Hornets have LaMelo, Bulls have LaVine.

The Pacers could use a shot of creation to help Sabonis and Brogdon. But there are just such few teams like this that qualify outside of the really terrible bottom feeders like Orlando, Detroit, and Houston.

Why is creation valued so highly?

The fact of the matter is that creation is not that hard to find, and there are diminishing returns on it, yet teams often pay a massive premium to acquire it. Why?

The answer is likely because the best players are all elite shot creators, and it is an important part of team building to find a star who can do it efficiently. But the premium should be placed on finding a well rounded shot creator who provides value in the form of passing and/or defense, as that is what makes a superstar.

As good as Devin Booker has become, he is clearly not the best player on his team. The Suns didn’t have their breakout until adding MVP candidate Chris Paul. They also built around him perfectly with efficient guys who do not demand touches in DeAndre Ayton, Jae Crowder, and Mikal Bridges. Yet they are still a 2nd tier contender who needed massive injury luck to reach the finals.

Booker is a clearly good player and the Suns would not be as good without him. But he not some special prize that makes team building easier the way it would to land a hyper-efficient and versatile role playing wing like Otto Porter.

Back to Green vs. Franz

Bearing in mind that Franz is the more scarce commodity who fits into a wider range of lineups stylistically, let’s discuss who is more likely to provide raw value between him and Green.

It is not difficult to estimate Jalen Green’s offensive upside. Players of his size without elite passing typically cap out around +4 to +5 points per 100 offensively. Looking at 538’s RAPTOR, Bradley Beal is the gold standard with +4.3, +5.2, +5.4 in the past 3 seasons. LaVine is +1.3, +1.2, +3.9, Booker is +3.6, +4.8, +3.1, CJ McCollum is +3.3, +2.5, +3.7, Jamal Murray is +2.3, +3.0, +3.2. And all of these seasons range from like 0 to -3 defensively.

Even though his athletic scoring ability looks highly impressive, it is much more difficult to replicate consistently than somebody like Kevin Durant who can shoot over the defense with ease whenever he wants. There is a limit to the usage and efficiency a guy like him can realistically post. And he just is not going to be a Harden level passer to put him in the top tier of offensive upside.

Defensively, perhaps there is a chance he is average. He did lead his G League team in steal rate. But he is undersized with bad IQ and effort right now, and he is being drafted top 3 to get buckets. Most of his energy has historically gone toward developing his offense, why would that change now?

Green’s realistic upside is approximately +4/-1, and his optimistic upside is +5/0. But that’s REALLY optimistic since the more energy that goes into offense, the less likely he is to have acceptable defense.

Otto Porter peaked around +2 to +3 offensively during his best seasons according to RAPTOR– specifically +2.1/+1.2 and +2.9 /+1.5 which seems reasonable for him. It may be tough for Franz to match this given that Otto shot 43.4% and 44.1% from 3P in those seasons, but it was on low-ish rate of attempts and Franz may be the better creator and passer. And while I never scouted Porter’s defense in college, Franz is essentially pristine on that end and is only limited by his lack of strength and explosiveness.

So it’s really tough to say with Franz. He needs very little to go right to be +1 on either end, and +2 is clearly attainable as well. Being +3 on either end is a difficult ask for him, but he is so uniquely well rounded and good at avoiding mistakes you cannot rule it out.

Intuitively, these guys project to have similar raw values given an ideal lineup in their best cases…and it seems that Franz becoming +3/+2 is slightly more realistic than Green becoming +5/0, since he only needs to be half a point better on D than peak Otto, and when Beal and Booker get to +5 offense it tends to come attached with -2 to -3 defense.

Creation is a significant part of upside, but it is not everything. When it comes in an undersized and one dimensional player it does not necessarily create more upside than a perfectly well rounded role player.

And as another sneaky bonus– if they hit their boring outcomes, and Franz ends up as 0/+1 and Green +3/-2, Franz can be extended for a reasonable price whereas Green still likely commands a max deal for a player who isn’t that good and creates a TON of lineup friction.

Bottom Line

The narrative that shot creation yields big upside needs to be overhauled into being well rounded and versatile is important for high upside.

While creation is very important, there is only a finite amount that can fit onto any team. At any given moment, 90% of the players on the floor are not touching the ball, and to truly build an overpowered lineup like the Warriors’ death lineup, you need to load up on players who provide value outside of scoring.

Franz Wagner is uniquely good at defense, passing, avoiding turnovers, and is still a passable handler and creator. Jalen Green is the inverse player. This creates all sorts of subtle advantages for Franz.

He sneakily may have more upside than Green, he is easier to fit into a wider range of lineups, he is the more scarce commodity, and you simply have more potential to build an elite team with Franz.

Their overall values are still fairly close, and it is fairly likely that Franz will be the more useful player while casual fans believe that Green is better. Green will always have sexier highlights, and may end up with more all-star selections and jersey sales.

But if you want to build an NBA team that wins, Franz would be my choice and it would not be a particularly difficult one. Green being valued so much higher by consensus as a top 3 pick vs Franz currently at #11 is not just an inefficiency in the draft– it is an inefficiency in the common perception of basketball.

How good is Scottie Barnes?

15 Tuesday Jun 2021

Posted by deanondraft in Uncategorized

≈ 16 Comments

Tags

2021, cade cunningham, scottie barnes

Scottie Barnes is an incredibly unique prospect, as he is more than just a point forward. He is a point guard in a large forward’s body, and has a strong case for purest PG prospect with wing dimensions we have seen since LeBron James.

If you wanted to predict upside based on the intersection of a few statistics: age, height, length, assist rate, and steal rate are likely the best choices.

Assist rate correlates with defensive ability as it is predictive of basketball IQ, and steal rate is correlated with ability to defend the perimeter. Having both of these traits in tandem with good dimensions is ideal for switchability, and it shouldn’t be surprising this list is littered with good defensive players.

Also assists imply some creation ability, and steals are correlated with being good offensively, so most of these players are at least competently offensively, and some of them very good.

Further, height enables players to see and pass over the defense, which can amplify the value of high tier passing.

So let’s look at top 40 wings since 2003 who are at least 6’7″ with 20%+ assist rate and 2%+ steal rate in a season where they were still younger than 20 on Jan 1st:

	Age	AST%	STL%	Height	Wingspan	Year	Pk
Scottie Barnes	19.4	31.7	3.4	6’9	7’3	2021	?
Luka Doncic	18.8	30.5	2.4	6’8	?	2018	3
Ben Simmons	19.4	27.4	3.1	6’10	7’0	2021	1
Evan Turner	20.2	25.8	2.9	6’7	6’8	2009	2
Khris Middleton	19.4	23.7	2.5	6’8	6’10.5	2011	39
Andre Iguodala	19.9	23.7	2.6	6’7	6’11.5	2004	9
Draymond Green	19.8	23.3	2.9	6’7	7’1	2010	35
Tomas Satoransky	19.2	22.5	2.6	6’7	6’7	2012	32
Paul George	19.7	22.4	3.9	6’9	6’11	2010	10
Corey Brewer	19.8	22.4	3.2	6’7	6’9	2006	7
Ronnie Brewer	18.8	22.4	3.6	6’8	6’11	2004	14
Julius Hodge	19.1	21.9	2.1	6’7	7’0	2005	20
Nic Batum	19	21.5	2.7	6’8	7’1	2008	25
Kyle Anderson	19.3	20.4	3.4	6’9	7’2	2014	30
Cade Cunningham	19.3	20.4	2.5	6’8	7’0.5	2021	?

Evan Turner was included because he barely missed the age cut and the sample is so small otherwise. But outside of him and Julius Hodge who barely made the cut in all regards, this list is loaded with quality value selections in the draft. This also bodes well for Cade Cunningham, who in spite of his myriad flaws fits a profile that rarely flops completely.

How Does Scottie Fit In?

Barnes tops the list in assists and length, tied for 3rd in steals, and tied for 2nd in height is a scary intersection of traits. He often defended opposing guards for FSU, and has excellent potential defensively with the ability to switch 1-4.

Offensively, Barnes is perceived to be a limited creator, but he is arguably the 2nd best self-creator on this list outside of Luka. If we use hoop-math’s play by play data to measure self created FG’s at the rim in the halfcourt by removing assisted FG’s and putbacks, he leads this sample on a per 40 minute basis:

Player	Mins	SC FG	per 40
Scottie	595	23	1.55
Cade	956	33	1.38
Simmons	1151	33	1.15
Draymond	1228	28	0.91
K Anderson	1046	17	0.65
Middleton	575	5	0.35

Note this only goes back to 11-12, which counts Middleton’s injury plagued junior year over his quality sophomore season, and Draymond’s senior year when he was 2+ years older than the rest of the group. And nobody else on this list outside of Luka was a particularly good creator at a young age, so this is another area where Scottie beats out the majority of a talented and successful group.

In summary: Scottie is taller, longer, better at passing, defending the perimeter, and rim self creation than the majority of a list littered with all-stars and quality role players and few busts. That’s a whole lot of goodness for a player projected outside of the top 5.

Diving Deeper

The most unique part of Barnes’ profile is likely is his shot creation ability for his size. Outside of Luka Doncic and LeBron James, he is arguably the best 6’7″+ playmaking prospect of the lottery era. Which sounds crazy at first, but most guys at that size aren’t great shot creators.

The numbers above present a clear case for him being better than Cade or Simmons. Giannis and T-Mac may have been better if they played college, but pre-draft were pure mystery boxes. Lamar Odom was more of a big with point forward skills than a pure perimeter creator. Evan Turner didn’t take off as a creator until being 2 years older than Barnes.

The biggest challenges to that claim are likely Paul Pierce and Grant Hill. At Barnes’ age, Pierce averaged 23.2 pts and 3.0 assists per 40 minutes and Hill averaged 18.5 pts and 5.4 assists compared to 16.7 pts and 6.6 assists for Barnes.

This illuminates why this hypothesis sounds so crazy and misaligns so badly with consensus– Barnes was more of a pass first player and not a huge volume scorer. And because he only played 24.8 minutes off the bench, he barely scored double digits at 10.3 points per game, thus is perceived as more of an elite role player than offensive centerpiece.

Visual Evidence

The eye test supports the data that a major percentage of his scoring was self created against set defenses. Barnes isn’t an explosive leaper, but he uses good agility to get to spots on the floor and finishes with his length and body control.

In terms of passing, he has excellent court vision and is willing to push the pace in transition. He plays under control and doesn’t force the issue, often making the simple pass. But he is capable of making difficult passes off the dribble, and his length helps him pass over the defense.

Defensively he is highly disruptive with his length, both in the passing lanes, as well as using it to pick opposing point guards clean.

Weaknesses

Barnes is not the most physical player. He is merely decent offensive rebound at 7.4%, his FT rate is a pedestrian 0.32, and his defensive rebounding rate is a paltry 11.1%. This is likely in part attributable to him playing on the tallest team in the country and frequently defending opposing PG’s, even picking them up in the backcourt, but is nevertheless underwhelming.

Further, he has a disappointing 2.1% block rate for his dimensions and can be prone to getting beat off the dribble as well as mental lapses that cast doubt on his basketball IQ. He has an easy path to being good and possibly great on defense, but has clear room for improvement at this stage.

His biggest wart is his lack of shooting, as he made just 62.1% FT and 27.5% 3P on low volume. This is a significant turnoff in the modern NBA, but it’s also not clear that he is THAT bad at shooting. He attempted a meager 66 FTs on the season, and was a mere 5 makes away from being a respectable 70%.

From 2017-2019 he shot 166/246 (67.4%) FT’s between Montverde, AAU, and FIBA and 17/52 (32.7%) from 3P. The FT sample is especially significant since it’s 4x his NCAA sample and players tend to make significant shooting leaps from ages 15-17 to 19. And his stroke visually looks decent, so most likely he is truly a 68%+ FT shooter.

His low 3PA volume indicates that he still isn’t fully comfortable from 3 range, but if he is truly a ~70% FT shooter who ran bad during a COVID shortened season it’s plausible that he may develop into an average or better NBA distance shooter longterm.

Ultimately it’s rather exciting that he has a number of unique strengths, and his only major flaw is only soft coded at the moment and may not even be that bad. Barnes is likely going to be a useful player, and if he learns to shoot he is loaded with upside.

Comparisons

Ben Simmons

Simmons has some major advantages over Barnes, as he was 1″ taller, more athletic, and the far more physical player in college. He had a significant advantages in rebound rates (9.6/26.5 offense/defense vs 7.4/11.1) and free throw rate (0.77 vs 0.34), and is a better prospect than Barnes.

But there are ways in which Barnes can close the gap on Simmons, as he has a handful of small advantages. 3″ more wingspan, better assist (31.7. vs 27.4) and assist:TOV (1.66 vs 1.42), and aforementioned self-creation (1.55 vs 1.15).

The variance is whether Barnes learns to shoot. He isn’t going to be a worse shooter than Simmons, and he can be better by a significant margin. And if his shot comes around, he has an easy path to being Simmons’ level or better.

Cade Cunningham has been compared to Ben Simmons with a shot, but his strengths are nowhere near on par with Simmons since he lacks Simmons’ athleticism and physicality as well as his point guard ability. The player who has a real chance to become Simmons with a shot is Barnes.

Kawhi/Giannis

Much like Barnes, both players had a 7’3″ wingspan and a point forward skill set. Yet they were underrated on draft day, both going 15th overall.

Kawhi had outlier improvements to his shooting from college, and Giannis had an outlier development arc including 2″ of growth. So it’s obviously highly optimistic to compare Barnes to these guys. But when big, long wings who can handle and pass end up developing well, they end up developing REALLY well.

Barnes needs a number of things go well to come close to these guys, but based on his unique strengths we cannot rule out the possibility that he becomes an eventual MVP candidate like we can for the vast majority of prospects.

Draymond Green

Green is the common upside comp for Barnes, as both heavily lean on their length and instincts to make an impact as versatile defensive players. Barnes is taller, longer, and more athletic, and Draymond has a higher basketball IQ.

In spite of being smaller, Draymond is stronger and plays bigger with much better rebound (9.6/23.8 vs 7.4/11.1), block (4 vs 2.1), and free throw rates (0.48 vs 0.32). It’s unlikely Barnes will be able to match Draymond’s ability to defend as a small 5 or his overall defensive value with his warts on this end.

But Barnes can nevertheless be excellent in his own rite defensively guarding 1-4. And he offers far more creation ability offensively than Green, as well as the possibility of developing into a better shooter in time. He has potential to be significantly better on offense.

They have some stark differences, but it’s easy to see how Barnes can match or even exceed Draymond’s overall value with more offense + physical tools and less defense + IQ if he develops well.

Kyle Anderson

SloMo has near identical dimensions to Barnes and was similarly disruptive on defense. The major difference is that Barnes moves in regular motion, and was able to self-create for himself and teammates better as a freshman, which is a fairly significant advantage.

Anderson had a better NCAA FT% (73.5 vs 62) which has finally translated into a decent 3 point shot this past season at age 27, but he was a decent rotation player before then and now solidly good. He also had a much better NCAA DREB% (23 vs 11.1) and had the better basketball IQ to help compensate for his slowness.

It’s not a lock that Barnes will be as good or better than Anderson in the NBA, but he is a clearly superior prospect and on average should be better than Anderson. Given that Anderson would likely be worth a top 10 pick in this draft, it’s not a bad soft floor to have.

Evan Turner

The scary comp on this list is Evan Turner, as the only player who badly underperformed his draft slot outside of Julius Hodge. But he doesn’t actually belong on this list because he was a disaster offensively during his age 19 freshman season, with poor efficiency on middling usage and more turnovers than assists.

He was crafty enough to learn to become a good creator in the Big Ten in each of his next two seasons, but ultimately his style of dribbling endlessly failed to translate to the NBA as a non-athlete with t-rex arms who never learned to shoot. And even then he still had a couple of OK enough seasons for Boston at ages 26/27 where Brad Stevens was able to trick Portland into paying him 4/70.

That’s quite a few flags that went into Turner’s career of mediocrity. It’s unlikely that Barnes flops that hard.

Josh Jackson could be loosely added to the list as he just missed the cut for assist rate at 18.2%. He also had 5″ less wingspan and was 6 months older than Scottie as a freshman and a bit less proficient at getting to the rim. Again, it’s unlikely Barnes flops as hard.

Scottie vs Cade

Perhaps this is an insane comp to make, as my twitter feed certainly believes it to be.

Cade has one really big advantage over Barnes in shooting, whereas Barnes has a number of smaller advantages: 1-2″ of height/length, better passing, defense, and motor. Athletically they are in a similar tier, and Barnes likely has the edge as a ball handler.

Cade shooting 40/85 from 3P/FT vs Barnes 28/62 on more than twice the 3PA is a massive advantage, but it is somewhat mitigated by Cade outperforming his priors of 16/57 3P (28%) and 143/191 FT (74.9%) whereas Barnes underperformed 17/52 3PA (32.7%) and 166/246 FT (67.4%). How much is more genuine improvement vs sample size variance is a pure guessing game, but Cade needs to become a god tier shooter to really be great, whereas Barnes only needs to become decent.

Given how close their priors were, it is clear that Barnes becoming a decent shooter is more attainable than Cade becoming outlier good.

For a quick and dirty comparison: Cade posted 104.2 ORtg on 28.6 usg and Barnes 107.5 ORtg on 25.4 usg. Using the exchange rate of 1.25 points of ORtg being worth 1 point of usg, that would put Barnes at a slightly worse 103.6 ORtg than Cade if he matched his usage.

If Barnes shooting luck was even slightly bad and/or Cade’s was slightly good, Barnes is suddenly the more efficient offensive player on top of being the superior defensive prospect with better dimensions.

This shows in their respective play styles, as Cade likes to just go and take whatever shot he can create or pass to whatever teammate he sees, while Barnes is more patient in waiting for an efficient opportunity to come available.

Everybody loves shooting for its spacing value, but for a top 5 pick that you are drafting to be an offensive hub, efficient decision making should weigh far heavier.

Granted, it’s a close debate and difficult to make a definitive statement on who will be better based on one COVID shortened season. But it’s difficult to see the case for Cade being better by any substantial margin with only one significant advantage with weak priors.

Personally, I would take Barnes’ multiple advantages as these all translate to more upside than the relatively linear value of shooting.

Barnes is clearly behind Evan Mobley who is the obvious #1 in this draft. But after Mobley he has the next most attractive talent, and I rate him as the 2nd best prospect on the board.

2020 Draft Guide

18 Wednesday Nov 2020

Posted by deanondraft in Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

I never really liked the format of ranking every player in the draft on a big board, because it feels too decisive to have an exact rank for everybody based on incomplete analysis on incomplete information.

GMs drafting don’t need to rank anybody, they just need to look into the best targets at their range and pick the one they believe will be best.

So for this board I will do my best to rank everybody since that’s how everybody is used to consuming draft information. But I am going to focus on narrating how I would approach the draft in different ranges if I was choosing for a team.

Further I will try to be transparent about the uncertainty I have, as many of the prospects in this draft are not that interesting to me, but I don’t want to actively bet on them being bad.

Top 4

I already went into detail on the top players with an attempt to rank them, although I don’t have any strong opinion on how to rank #s 2 thru 4. They are all guys I would rather trade the pick than draft, and I am unsure who I would rate the highest with a deep analysis of complete information.

#1 Player Worth Drafting:

1. Onyeka Okongwu

This may seem like a hot take, as Okongwu is somewhat lacking in sex appeal for a #1 overall pick. He is an undersized big who is somewhat limited on offense, so the lack of top 3 hype is understandable at a glance.

But everybody else projected to go top 3 is based on sheer potential with serious risks of flopping. Whereas Okongwu is the one prospect in the draft who seems likely to be good.

It starts with his defensive potential, as he is 6’9″ with 7’2″ wingspan, good athleticism, and anchored an elite USC defense. He showed the ability to protect the rim as well as switch onto perimeter players and create turnovers. Even though he is traditionally undersized, his versatility could make him the ideal big man for the modern NBA.

Offensively, he is a good finisher and made 72% FT, showing some potential to develop a 3 point shot. His handle is likely too weak for him to live up to Bam in terms of creation, but he could carve out his own mold of goodness that is slightly different.

Players with enough potential to consider drafting top 4, but likely smarter to trade the pick instead:

Ball, Wiseman, and Edwards all are weak as potential top 3 picks. If forced to choose between these three, I would try to trade the pick as very likely somebody else will rate each of them higher than I do . They all carry risk of being duds, and it’s hard to get too excited about any of their upsides as top 3 guys.

I don’t have a strong opinion on how to order them, but here’s my best guess:

2. James Wiseman

Wiseman is lacking in meat to his profile, as his AAU sample showed a horribly limited player. But he has good physical tools, and showed a major improvement in the Nike Hoop Summit as well as his tiny 3 game sample in Memphis.

There’s such limited info on him it’s difficult to be confident in his goodness. Fairly often he will be a boring big who is not particularly rare or useful, as his lack of instincts and motor could render him into an obsolete and boring big.

But there’s the possibility that he has good work ethic and off court intelligence, and that he genuinely made a major leap from high school to college and could develop into a LaMarcus Aldridge or Serge Ibaka type.

Ultimately there’s not enough information that establishes him as a clearly good prospect to feel comfortable drafting him in the top 3, but it wouldn’t be a shock if he found a path to success given his physical profile and glimpses of excellence at Memphis.

3. LaMelo Ball

On paper, Ball is the most talented prospect in the draft as a 6’7″ triple double machine PG. But there are serious questions as to whether it is worth investing a #1 overall pick in him.

He is completely apathetic on defense, and even Lonzo says that LaMelo never tried on defense growing up. Further, in ESPN’s recent feature of him, he says he doesn’t care about scouting reports on his opponents because nobody can stay in front of him. The article later mentions that he doesn’t enjoy talking about his shooting and simply says “I can shoot, no problem there.”

This theme carried over to Mike Schmitz breakdown of defensive film with LaMelo. Both times that Schmitz asks him what he’s doing to work on his defense (17:40 and 20:13) he gives generic and vague answers in the vein of “I’m just learning.”

His apathy toward defense and lack of interest in discussing his weaknesses are pretty big flags for a kid who has historically opted for flash over substance and likens himself to Kobe.

LaMelo has unique strengths, but also unique weaknesses and if he is not committed to addressing them and improving them he’s just not going to be that good. He is not as humble or wired to win as his brother Lonzo, and you are basically praying that the offspring of Lavar Ball changes these habits as he ages. Which is possible– he is hardly 19. But is it really something that is wise to stake a high value draft pick on?

He seems similar to D’Angelo Russell, and lots of times even when he hits he will still be overpaid and frustrating like D’Angelo because his defense weighs him down so heavily.

Ultimately LaMelo should be #1 overall from a talent perspective, but there are flags that make it terrifying to actually invest a #1 overall pick in him. Who knows– it may prove to be the correct move in the longterm but personally I would rather not ride this roller coaster and trade down.

4. Anthony Edwards

Edwards is long, athletic, and capable of scoring volume for a SG, and other than that he is full of concerns.

He isn’t a natural passer, he isn’t good on defense, he doesn’t get to the rim as often as you would hope, and his best weapon is his off the dribble shooting where he made just 29% from 3 as a freshman for Georgia.

His appeal is that he is very young and made 77% FT with a high 3PA rate. If he develops into a good shot maker and fills out the rest of his game decently enough, he could be something like a bigger Eric Gordon which is nice.

But the archetype of chucking SG who doesn’t have any clear strengths besides volume scoring is rigged to disappoint a huge % of the time. His median outcome is going to be something like a more chuckerish version of KCP, and that’s not what you want to target in the top 3.

Players worth drafting in the top 10:

5. Pat Williams

Williams is 6’8″, athletic, super young, and capable of making shots on offense and plays on defense. This is the type of player where you just don’t overthink things and draft him in case he figures it out.

That said, he comes with plenty of warts. He still is more comfortable from mid-range than 3, as he shot 32% from 3 on a lowish volume. And while he made 83.8% FT, it’s a small sample with just 74 attempts. He also could be better rebounding for a player with his tools, and while he had very good steal and block rates he still isn’t a lockdown man to man defensive player.

And while his wingspan is decent enough at 6’11”, it’s still not in elite range that gives him really strong upside.

But he nevertheless has more upside than most, and athletic 6’8″ 3 + D wings are one of the most coveted molds in the modern NBA. He is largely a gamble on youth and tools, but they give him an easier path to usefulness and a better upside tail than most prospects in the draft.

Tyrese Haliburton

Haliburton is one of the weirdest prospects in the draft. He has exceptionally good stats, but they all come with asterisks.

He made 42.6% from 3 and 77.5% FT in his college career, but his shooting form looks awkward and it’s difficult to be confident in his shooting going forward.

He has good rebounds and great steals and blocks, but his rail thin frame makes him prone to getting bullied on defense.

As a sophomore he improved significantly as a scorer and is an excellent passer, but he still puts limited pressure on the rim and almost never gets to the free throw line.

For a 6’5″ guy, he’s too small to guard wings and he may not have the ball skills to make a big offensive impact.

In many regards he is similar to Lonzo Ball, as both have excellent vision, IQ, and height for a PG but limited strength, athleticism, and scoring abilities. It’s possible that he similarly struggles to score in the NBA, but is worse in other regards as he is smaller and skinnier.

But he also may happen to be a better shot maker who offers similar goodness to Lonzo otherwise in a more well rounded package.

Ultimately, it’s difficult to ever see him being a star lead guard, but he can be a hyper-efficient, high IQ role player.

Haliburton isn’t the sexiest type of player to target in the mid-lottery, but with lack of other options, why not gamble on one of the few players who was able to stuff the stat sheet and may be able to find a highly useful niche as an NBA role player.

Guys who are not terrible but are awfully boring in the lottery

After Haliburton and Williams are gone, there’s not much to get excited about to fill out the lottery. I’d try to trade down if anybody were interested, but if forced to choose here are the guys that seem worth considering:

7. Devin Vassell

Vassell is just a solid role playing wing. 6’7 with 6’10 wingspan, good steals and blocks, good efficiency, and a microscopic turnover rate, he fits the 3 + D mold that is highly coveted in today’s NBA.

He is on the thin side, and it’s worth questioning exactly how good his shooting is as he made 41.7% 3P but just 72% FT in his 2 years at Florida State. And he’s not an athlete or creator with unique upside, and may be slightly small for wing which limits his appeal.

He has a clear path to efficient role player, but his lack of size and creation may inhibit his upside.

He probably belongs in top 10 by default due to easy path to being decent, but he is pretty limited and boring for a top 10 guy.

8. Kira Lewis

Lewis is one of the fastest players in the class with great ability to pressure the rim, and he showed potential to score at all 3 levels impressively given his age.

He is 6’3″ and not a natural floor general with a mediocre assist:TOV rate, as he is still learning how to play point guard. He may never be able to run an offense at a high level, and may be limited to a bench microwave like Lou Williams to get his scoring on the court.

But he only turned 19 in April, and if he does figure out how to play PG and hold his own on defense, he has one of the better upside tails in the late lottery. He comes with risk but is worth a close look once the blue chips come off the board.

9. Josh Green

Green is in a boring mold. At 6’6″ with 6’10” wingspan, he is a bit small for a wing, and it shows with his pedestrian rebound rate.

Offensively, he has traces of guard skills. He can get to the rim and finish at times, he has a good assist to turnover (3.4 vs 2.1 per 4)), and he made 78% of his free throws and 36% of his 3’s as a freshman.

But he has a relatively low 3PA rate which leaves questions about his shooting, and doesn’t have enough shake to be a primary handler. He is decisively a complementary player on offense, which limits his upside given his size.

His main strength is his defense, as he is an intelligent and athletic defensive player who loves to study film, and it shows as he was good both in man to man and posted a good steal rate.

He has the ability to be a quality defensive player in the NBA, but he would be much more exciting if he was 1 or 2 inches taller as he is essentially a wing in a SG body. That said, he has a rare intersection of athleticism and intelligence that he applies to defense, and this cannot be ignored for a guy who is competent offensively.

Green isn’t dripping with upside, but he has a clear path to useful NBA player. He is comparable to Devin Vassell in terms of dimensions and role, and could be relatively good value if he slides to the late teens or 20s as currently projected.

10. Jalen Smith

Smith is a somewhat boring big, but he is good. He is fluid and athletic, and can score both inside and out making 75% FT and 36.8% 3P as a sophomore.

He is also a good rebounder and shotblocker, and was one of the best NCAA players this past season as he led Maryland to the best season ever by a team coached by Mark Turgeon.

At 6’10” with 7’2″ wingspan with a skinny frame, he is slightly undersized for a center by traditional standards. But given modern trends, he may be ideal for the mold given his shooting, shot blocking, and mobility to give him outs to switch.

The only unsexy thing is his assist rate dropped as a sophomore to have 1.0 per 40 vs 2.2 assists. And he has a pedestrian steal rate, which limits expectations for how much success we can really expect him to have guarding perimeter.

Smith doesn’t have the sexiest upside tail, but he is an efficient cog that does a number of things well and likely will have a useful NBA career.

11. Killian Hayes

Hayes has a funky distribution of traits, with excellent size for a PG at 6’5″ to go with great vision and FT%, making 85.8% from the line over the past 3 years. This is especially impressive considering he just turned 19.

But he fails to back up that FT% with success beyond the arc, as he has made just 27.8% from 3 over that stretch. He also is a non-elite athlete with limited ability to pressure the rim. Long term he needs to convert his FT% success to shot making from the field in order to have value as a lead guard.

He also had an extremely high turnover rate, and being an unathletic limited creator and a turnover machine at PG and probably not that good on defense are a ton of warts that make it risky to get too excited over him as many on draft twitter rate Hayes as a top 3. He very well could be a Kendall Marshall type and make the twitter hype look preposterous in retrospect.

Personally, I have no idea what to expect from him. I don’t have the best grasp on the German league, and he has such a funky distribution it’s difficult to envision how he will actually look in the NBA.

If I were drafting in the late lottery I would definitely give Hayes a closer look as it’s plausible he is value in that range. But as it is I have no real opinion

2nd round Steals:

These guys are all projected to go in round 2. It’s difficult to rank them compared to the boring lotto guys, but they don’t seem notably worse than most of them so this is where they will get stashed on this list:

12. Jah’mius Ramsey

Ramsey is one of the more exciting boom or bust prospects in the draft. He is definitely as guard at 6’4″, but is very coordinated and has the ability to score at all 3 levels.

He is small for a SG with a mere 6’6″ wingspan, but he makes plays on defense with good steals, blocks, and rebounds for his size.

Offensively, he isn’t a pure point guard and there are questions about his shooting as he only made 64.1% FT as a freshman.

He has plenty of warts that give him bust potential, but Ramsey is young, talented, and has clear potential to emerge as the best guard in the class longterm.

13. Vernon Carey

Carey is an archaic big, as he is a 6’10” bully with questionable ability to guard the perimeter.

But the guy had a super productive season for Duke, and would be the clear #1 overall as recently as 2015. He has a workable outside shot, he has outs to be good on defense, and it’s far too soon to quit on this type of player completely.

Carey is an excellent player in an unsexy mold, and there are only so many bad players in good molds that can be taken ahead of him before it makes sense to pull the trigger.

14. Devon Dotson

Dotson challenges Lewis for fastest player in the class, and he also excels at getting to the rim and finishing.

The main reason why Dotson is behind Lewis, is that he is smaller and 20 months older, while also having worse assist rate and 3P%. These are non-trivial warts and largely account for why he is currently projected to go in round 2.

Dotson is no doubt the weaker raw talent than Lewis, as his passing and shooting are serious warts considering his size and age. But unlike all of the super young mystery boxes slated to go ahead of him, Dotson is actually really good at basketball right now.

He posted the highest steal rate by a Kansas player since Mario Chalmers and Russell Robinson in 2008 for the best Kansas defense since the 2008 championship team. And the defense significantly declined in the limited time he spent on the bench.

His dimensions of 6’2″ with 6’3.25″ wingspan limit his defensive upside, but Chris Paul and Kyle Lowry show that outlier little guys can be good defensively. Dotson is unlikely to match those studs defensively, but he is a pest with excellent quickness and anticipation, and one of the best defensive small PG prospects in recent memory.

Offensively, he is the best guard in the draft at creating his own shot at the rim in the halfcourt and finishing, as he uses his excellent speed to get to the rim and soft touch to finish with efficiency. He also draws a healthy FT rate, and made 82.8% as a soph and 80.7% over his two years at Kansas.

Collectively he was an efficient, high usage two way player who was the best player on the best NCAA team. He only has the passing and 3 point shooting warts holding back his longterm stock.

Bill Self historically suppresses assists in guards, and given Dotson’s excellent defensive anticipation, it’s plausible that he can develop into more of a passer than he showed at Kansas. And he made 33.2% of his 3’s in his two years at Kansas, and given his good FT% he can develop into a good 3 point shooter in the NBA. Neither of these flaws are fatal.

So long as the shooting comes around, Dotson should be a useful pro. Even if he isn’t a true offensive hub, he can nevertheless pair well with star wings like Doncic, Simmons, Harden, Giannis, etc. And if he shooting and passing both come around, he has some seriously sneaky upside in the NBA.

Ultimately there is a ton to like about Dotson, and a few unpleasant warts. But little guys are often big value when they can play, and Dotson has the athleticism, he seems to have the IQ, and he has a portion of the skills necessary to succeed in the NBA. If he just develops the rest he will check all of the boxes and could be a steal if he goes in round 2 as currently slated.

Guys who I would not draft but not may be terrible

This is a common theme for many of the the prospects projected to go mid-late 1st this year. These guys are largely players that I would not target personally, but may not necessarily be bad picks.

15. Saddiq Bey

Bey is very unathletic, but is 6’8″ with a good basketball IQ, can handle, pass, avoid mistakes, and make shots. It’s easy to see him fitting in as an NBA role player.

One minor concern is how good is his shooting, really? He made 41.8% of his 3’s at Villanova, but shot just 72.8% from FT with his mechanics looking awkward. He should be a decent to good NBA shooter, but if a team is expecting an elite shooter they will likely be disappointed

What’s interesting is that for such a poor athlete, Bey did well switched onto fast and skilled guards such as Devon Dotson. That’s impressive for a 6’8″ guy whose main flaw is athleticism.

Bey is drawing near dead to be a star, but it’s very easy to see him being useful as a 6’8″ guy who does all of the role player things so well.

Bey’s shooting ability is too murky to be a player I would actively target in the draft, but it’s easy to see him paying off decently enough for whoever takes him.

16. Isaac Okoro

Okoro is similar to Josh Green in that he is a defensive specialist who is undersized for a wing at 6’6″. But with a 6’8.5″ wingspan he has even shorter arms, and is a worse team defender than Green with much lower steal rate.

Wings with his mediocre steal rate are almost never great defenders, and his poor rebound rate adds an additional flag to fret over.

It’s difficult to get enthused about man to man defense at SG as the sole defining trait of a player who is not a good shooter, making 67% FT and 29% 3P as a freshman with hardly more assists than turnovers.

Okoro’s most common outcome is decent defensive player who is limited on offense and overall not too useful.

His hope is that he is good at getting to the rim and finishing, and is physical drawing a high volume of free throws. If his shooting and ball skills develop at an outlier rate, he can be a solid SG on both ends similar to Norman Powell.

But Powell was a good return on a mid 2nd rounder and had an insane shooting leap from NCAA to NBA. How high can we really take Okoro based on that hope?

Okoro is tricky because he has a number of likable traits for a SF, but has the dimensions of a small SG. Personally I would not be comfortable investing in him given his flaws, but I also wouldn’t sharply criticize a team for taking him late lotto.

17. Precious Achiuwa

Precious is an inefficient trainwreck offensively, but at 6’9″ with 7’1.5″ wingspan and good motor and athleticism, he has the tools to be a versatile defensive player in the NBA.

It’s difficult to feel good about his offense with 1.3 assists vs 3.7 turnovers per 40, 60% FT, and he turned 21 in September. Most of the time this will submarine his value as a pro.

It largely depends on how well the fat trims from his game offensively. If it goes well, he is in a great mold for an NBA role playing wing. But it’s a huge gamble as he may be an inefficient trainwreck offensively nullifying everything attractive about him.

He’s not a guy who I would be comfortable gambling on in the lotto but it could plausibly work for whoever does.

18. Obi Toppin

Obi is a largely one dimensional explosive finisher who offers a passable outside shooting and passing for his size and not much else.

His big flaw is that he is likely going to be a turnstile on D, as he is vertically explosive but does poorly laterally. And he is a suspiciously poor offensive rebounder for his size and athleticism, as well as being senior aged as a sophomore turning 22 in March.

Obi can likely post decent box score stats to look valuable, but his real value will likely always trail his box score because of his defense. It’s difficult to see him being better than Montrezl Harrell, and there is zero justification for taking him in the top 5.

19. RJ Hampton

RJ looks like Dante Exum’s long lost twin and has a number of similarities in his profile.

He is 6’5″ athletic combo guard who is capable of making plays defensively, but is limited offensively as he is not a natural point guard or a shooter.

If he can develop his offensive skills, he can be a solid SG on both ends. But right now, there’s just not enough meat offensively to get excited for a 6’5″ player.

20. Cole Anthony

Cole was a possible #1 overall pick until a disastrous freshman season for UNC completely tanked his shot.

He is likely better than he performed for UNC, but there are questions about how useful he can be in the NBA. He is a 6’3″ combo guard whose main value is his pull up jump shooting, and he is old for a freshman having turned 20 in May.

He may be constrained to being a bench scorer as he may not have the instincts to lead an offense.

He has a number of similarities to Austin Rivers, being the son of an NBA player with significant hype that he failed to live up to. But Rivers ended up coming around to being a mediocre bench player, and Anthony seems more talented than Rivers.

There’s not a sexy upside outcome, but he can have a decent NBA career and somewhere in the mid-1st feels about right for him.

21. Tyrese Maxey

Maxey is an ultra boring prospect, as he is a 6’3″ combo guard who isn’t really good at anything.

But as is true with all Calipari prospects, there is always the possibility that he is much better than the stat sheet shows.

Maxey is decent at getting to the rim, and he made 83% of his FT in spite of shooting only 29% from 3. So he could develop into a decent scorer if his FT% is more indicative of his shooting than his 3P%.

If he has more PG skills than he showed at Kentucky, there’s no reason why he can’t have a decent NBA career.

But he does feel much more boring than the typical Kentucky prospect, as he is most similar to guys like Brandon Knight and Malik Monk.

22. Deni Avdija

Deni is a mediocre prospect in an excellent mold. He is 6’9″ with good mobility, good IQ, and the possibility of learning to shoot. If his shooting comes around and his defense is as good as advertised, there is very little resistance to him being a useful NBA player.

But at the same time, he is drawing near dead to be a star. He has short arms and his athleticism is only decent, and he lacks the handle to be a high volume shot creator. And there is a chance his shooting is busted, as his makes just 59% of his free throws.

Most of the time he will be a bench player who isn’t coveted. But if his shooting and defense prove to be real, he is a solid 3 + D who can switch on to a wide variety of NBA players.

Late 1st and round 2 sleepers:

For the record I don’t think everybody in the above tier is necessarily better than everybody in this tier. They are ranked higher because they are largely projected to go much earlier, and this is an easier way to order everything such that the rankings aren’t dripping with hot takes all over the place.

But in contrast to the lottery, round 2 has some surprisingly interesting hidden gems this year

23. Xavier Tillman

It’s difficult to look at Tillman without noticing the uncanny comparisons to fellow Michigan State alum Draymond Green. Both are exceptionally good and well rounded players who failed to garner much hype due to being too slow to play the perimeter and too small to be a big.

But then it turned out Draymond was actually capable of guarding anybody because of his elite intelligence and instincts. Tillman had a slightly lower steal and assist rate, so there’s no guarantee he can overcome his lack of explosiveness like Draymond did.

But X is very intelligent in his own and an inch taller and longer at 6’8″ with a 7’2″ wingspan. He’s also a better shotblocker than Draymond, and may be overall closer to Paul Millsap.

Of course there’s no guarantee he is nearly as good as either– he isn’t very good offensively which in tandem with limited athleticism isn’t the best mix. But at least he has a couple of exciting upside comps who were also excellent draft steals. If this mold has succeeded in the past, it could be a mistake to draft too many bad players in more exciting molds ahead of him.

24. Reggie Perry

Perry offers unique offensive skill for a 6’10” player who is a solid athlete and can handle, pass, and shoot.

There are questions about his ability to defend in space, but he doesn’t seem completely doomed here and offers far too much offensive skill to let slide to round 2.

He could be a big steal if he proves to be competent defensively longterm.

25. Jordan Nwora

Nwora offers a good combination of dimensions, frame, and shooting. At 6’7.5″ with 6’10.5″ with a thick body, he is the ideal size for an NBA wing and is a good shooter to boot.

He is prone to tunnel vision and there are questions about his defense, but he has such a good baseline of size and shooting that it’s likely correct to just not let him slide too far and hope he figures it all out as a 3 + D.

26. Zeke Nnaji

Nnaji is a smooth and skilled big that can score inside and rebound, and has potential to develop into a guy who switches and makes 3’s.

He is another somewhat unsexy big that doesn’t quite have star potential, but if his shooting and switchability come around he’s going to be a very useful piece.

27. Paul Reed

Reed has great physical tools at 6’9″ with 7’2″ wingspan, good athleticism, and excellent defensive playmaking ability. He has potential to be a switchable defensive playmaker who makes a huge impact on that end.

The question lies in his offense, where he is sorely limited. He only made 33/102 3’s in 3 seasons at DePaul, but he did shoot 74.6% from FT to have some hope of developing into a long range shooter in time.

28. Tre Jones

Like his brother Tyus, Jones is a somewhat boring game manager point guard.

But Tyus is a decent NBA rotation player, and Tre may be a bit more athletic. He probably shouldn’t slide all the way to round 2.

29. Isaiah Stewart

On one hand, Stewart is bruising big who is rapidly going obsolete in the modern NBA.

On the other hand, he has an excellent 7’4″ wingspan, made a solid 77.4% FT as an overall productive freshman, and was #2 RSCI freshman who only turned 19 in May.

It’s difficult to envision his precise role in the NBA, but he has some interesting strengths. There’s a bit of sleeper potential here, I

30. Aleksej Pokusevski

One of the weirdest players in the class. Poku is 7’0 tall with excellent instincts, and a unique combination of handling and passing for his height while being the youngest player in the draft, turning 19 in December.

He also uses his dimensions as a playmaker defensively– in FIBA u18 in 2019, he averaged 2.6 steals and 4.1 blocks in 25.7 minutes per game to go with 4 assists. All #’s that for a 7 footer imply extreme upside.

After seeing Nikola Jokic dominate in the playoffs, teams may not want to let another funky Euro 7 footer with excellent instincts slide too far, as this typically creates a big upside tail.

But Poku also has enormous and grotesque warts that Jokic lacked. He is rail thin and looks like he has poor health. And he has no shake or explosiveness, and in FIBA averaged 10.3 points per game shooting a horrific 29.1% FG.

He sorely needs his outside shooting to come around, because he completely lacks the athleticism and physicality to finish in traffic.

Also he missed 3 months with a knee injury and his brother needed surgery to have his calf removed. His genetics are so poor there are serious questions about his ability to stay healthy longterm.

Plenty of skinny prospects have succeeded in the NBA, but most of them like Durant, Garnett, Bosh, etc. are athletic black guys with much more bone density than Poku. He looks frail and fragile, and a significant % of the time his career will get derailed by injury.

On the occasions where he is healthy enough to be available, there is the concern that gets relentlessly bullied on defense, and that his handle amounts to little offense if he cannot score.

The median outcome for Poku is bust. He likely will be not durable enough and/or not good enough to fit in the NBA.

But he has such unique strengths for a 7 footer, we cannot rule out his upside whatsoever. Maybe there’s a scenario where he becomes something like a poor man’s Andrei Kirilenko where he isn’t much of a scorer but makes so many other plays that he is nevertheless highly valuable.

The Kirilenko comparison is a longshot, but for a prospect with such huge strengths it cannot be discarded entirely.

Overall Poku is extremely difficult to analyze because he has so much polarity and weirdness, and is a basically a shot in the dark on upside that will probably miss.

I personally wouldn’t be excited to draft him, but he has enough unique strengths such that it’s completely reasonable to gamble on him in the late 1st as a boom or bust lotto ticket.

Others (in no particular order)

Aaron Nesmith

Nesmith is projected to go mid-1st right now, but he seems like an incredibly risky guy to take anywhere in round 1. He is an undersized, unathletic wing who is probably going to be bad on defense and is limited as a creator.

His only real strength is that he is a good shooter, but it’s not even clear that he’s elite at his one dimenson. He made 82.5% FT in his NCAA career which is good but not great, and he only shot 33.7% from 3 as a freshman. His breakout as a sophomore entailed 52.2% 3P shooting for half a season until getting hurt, although it came for an incredibly weak portion of Vanderbilt’s schedule.

This is significant as Nesmith has a somewhat slow release for such a vaunted shooting prospect, and if he really is a merely good shooter he is going to be a dud.

Robert Woodard

Woodard averaged a paltry 13.7 points per 40 as a 20 year old sophomore wing. Outside of scoring his profile is fairly ordinary as well, so there’s really no reason why he should be drafted at all.

Desmond Bane

Bane is a popular sleeper in round 1, but he comes with heavy warts. He has a paltry 6’4″ wingspan and is unathletic and incapable of pressuring the rim, which makes him a really low upside role player.

He is a good shooter and has a high IQ and good at avoiding mistakes, but that may not be enough to amount to much given his heavy flaws. His strengths need to be outlier to justify drafting such a poor physical profile in round 1.

He could be a serviceable role player much like Brad Wanamaker who also played for Jamie Dixon. That’s the type of prospect who belongs in round 2.

Cassius Winston
Nico Mannion
Malachi Flynn
Markus Howard

These are all small point guards who are very difficult to predict. Winston, Malachi, and Nico all seem like early 2nd round values, but I really don’t know with them. Maybe they are better or maybe they are worse.

The main point here is that it doesn’t make sense that Markus Howard is currently slated to go undrafted. He is only 5’11” with short arms and is not a true PG, with barely more assists than turnovers (4.1 vs 3.9 per 40) in his NCAA career.

But he rebounds just barely well enough to fit in physically, and he is the most lights out shooter in the draft making 42.7% from 3 on high volume and 88.2% FT in his 4 year career at Marquette.

He is also exceptionally young for a senior, having turned 21 in March he is younger than the average junior and more than a full year younger than sophomore Obi Toppin.

If Howard goes undrafted, he will be one of the top UDFA’s to look at as he seems to belong in a similar tier to these other small guards who are projected to go late 1st or early 2nd.

Draft Predictions Retrospective

24 Monday Aug 2020

Posted by deanondraft in Miscellaneous, NBA

≈ 3 Comments

hi-res-0024df4f53d645a8046a3eefd4e9c64c_crop_north

The draft is super hard to predict. Over my 6 years of blogging about the draft, I have made some good predictions and some bad ones. The predictions that sting me the most are the ones where I went too far pushing a “hot take.” The idea was nothing was at stake anyway, and if a contrarian opinion proves accurate, being more aggressive makes it look better in retrospect.

What I learned is that it’s extremely difficult to predict the next 15 years for a 19 year old kid. I have been wrong so many times, it now seems pointless to ever make any bold proclamations. It only makes my analysis less accurate, since more bold statements = more opportunities to be wrong. All I can do is look at the available information, assess the various possibilities for each prospect, and make an attempt at estimating their value.

The best thing I ever wrote questioned if Luka Doncic was the best prospect ever. The best part about the writeup is that I didn’t make any definitive statements, I merely presented facts and asked questions in an attempt to interpret it. The questions have since proved to be relevant, so I will focus on keeping that tone going forward

Anyhow, just for fun I will go back and review my year by year predictions since we have it all on record:

2014

This was my first year where I put the most effort, and also by far my best year. I was highly bearish on Jabari Parker and Andrew Wiggins as the top 2 picks.

I correctly rated Joel Embiid as the #1 overall pick, with Dante Exum, Aaron Gordon, and Marcus Smart rounding out the top 4. Some people may say Dante Exum at #2 looks bad in retrospect, but seeing that Embiid is the only real star at the top of the draft I don’t feel badly about it. I likely should have placed him at #4 below Smart and Gordon but this was a relatively minor miss for a shot at a mystery box.

I also correctly rated non-lotto bigs Jusuf Nurkic and Clint Capela above Parker + Wiggins at #5 and #6, which felt insane to do at the time yet somehow worked out.

I also had Nikola Jokic and Spencer Dinwiddie as 2nd round steals at #16 and #17 respectively.

I also had a few misses. Tyler Ennis piqued my interest but #9 was far too high for him. And while I feel I raised valid concerns about Julius Randle (#23), Zach LaVine (#35), and Rodney Hood (#57), I ranked all of them too low. But then after watching summer league, I actually noted that these were all of my opinions I felt worst about.

This was the season where I watched by far the most basketball both pre-draft and summer league, and really committed myself to understanding as much as possible. In retrospect I think my analysis was about as good as possible, and I may not ever analyze a draft this well again.

2015

This draft I gave much less effort than 2014 and it shows. I was far too low on Kristaps Porzingis (#12), Myles Turner (#20), Devin Booker (#22), and Terry Rozier (#50).

I also was sky high on Justise Winslow which hasn’t fully worked out, nor has it been a disaster. I ranked him #3 on my big board, and in the article I said I thought he was a better prospect than Jahlil Okafor and Emmanuel Mudiay which has proved to be accurate. But he also hasn’t nearly lived up to the massive potential I saw in him.

The bright side of this season was the only other player I wrote about: Josh Richardson. When he wasn’t even on the top 100 of anybody’s rankings, I wrote about how he was the hidden gem of the draft and ranked him #30.

I also had Larry Nance and Norman Powell as possible second round steals ranking them #32 and #33 respectively when they were getting relatively little attention (Nance going #27 was a big surprise). At least finding a few late steals somewhat salvaged this draft.

2016

This year was an unmitigated disaster. I had Ingram > Simmons, which is starting to look defensible, but Simmons is still the better talent and player and was the obvious #1.

I had Dragan Bender #3 which I don’t fully regret with such other few interesting options available, but I was too nevertheless too high based on a tiny sample of FIBA when he was 16.

Most notably I ranked Jamal Murray #12 and Buddy Hield #24 which is just awful considering how many terrible players I ranked ahead of them including #6 Deyonta Davis and #8 Timothe Luwawu. I was putting pretty low thought into my rankings, and in fairness I updated shortly after the draft to make all of these drastically more sane.

I did have a couple of decent ideas in the mix, with Dejounte Murray at #13 and Fred VanVleet #42 as a couple of later steals. But I don’t think this does much to salvage a bad overall ranking where I got too many things wrong.

2017

I was far too high on Lonzo Ball. I would still rank him #1 in retrospect because his strengths were so attractive, but I was far too dismissive of his flaws and downside risk.

I was also pretty high on most of the rest of the top 7. Fultz has flopped for somewhat unpredictable reasons– who could have known he was such a headcase? But then other than that Tatum, Fox, Isaac, and Markkanen all look pretty good while Josh Jackson has flopped.

I was correctly bearish on Dennis Smith Jr and ranked him #10, below OG Anunoby who I had #9. I had Donovan Mitchell #11 and I should have had him above DSJ.

Jarrett Allen at #27 was a small mistake and Bam at #28 was a big mistake.

This wasn’t my worst draft year, but it wasn’t my best either.

2018

This draft was so close to being good! I had my famous article on Luka, was bullish on Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, and had Josh Okogie and Kevin Huerter as solid 1st round picks when they weren’t in the consensus top 40.

But then I ruined it with too many hot takes. I still believe Trae Young is highly overrated and is not a player that I would want to build an NBA team around, but it’s clear that he has enough unique talent to be worth a top 10 pick. I went overboard on slandering him by ranking him 15th.

I also massively overhyped Jaren Jackson Jr. He was obviously the correct #2 prospect, and still is a very good one, but I made him 1b to Luka’s 1a which looks really bad in retrospect. I did ponder if he had GOAT upside, and frankly I don’t think it was a totally insane question. But he was so much less proven than Luka at the time, I really analyzed him through an excessively optimistic lens.

Also Zhaire Smith at #5 is a horrible take. I thought it was a good idea to gamble on athleticism, but he obviously had some big question marks that I glazed over too lightly.

Mikal Bridges at #18 was maybe a few slots too low. But I don’t feel too badly about this bc he still isn’t that exciting. We’ll see how he develops over the next few years.

I did correctly rate Jerome Robinson (#58) over Michael Porter Jr. (#9) as a horrific pick, and I had Gary Trent (#27) as a solid round 2 sleeper. I was too low on Mitchell Robinson, however, having him at #34.

Ultimately I feel that my analysis for this draft started off well, but I ended up taking too many unnecessary positions that were against the grain just to be different. I’d rate my analysis this draft collectively as OK, but nothing special.

2019

I didn’t even do a full writeup for this one because I didn’t feel like it. And it’s too early to say much about this draft with so much left to unfold, but so far my rankings look pretty good.

I was a huge bull on Ja Morant and PJ Washington. So far PJ looks like a one of the more solid guys outside of the top 2, and Ja looks like a future star.

It’s still too much to say about Ja, but I would still bet quite a bit that he goes on to have a better NBA career than Trae Young.

I was very low on DeAndre Hunter (#29) and Darius Garland (#19) who appear to be huge mistakes as top 5 picks.

And I had Terence Davis #39, which looks good for a UDFA.

I seem to have have underrated Cam Johnson at #38.

Other than that I didn’t have any strong opinions and we need more time to let things unfold. But I feel that I took fewer unnecessary bold positions than normal and overall I did a pretty decent job this year.

Conclusions

I have had ups and downs at predictions. I have had some good ideas that led to good predictions, and some slightly less good ideas that led to bad predictions.

I don’t know if I will ever replicate my 2014 performance where I was intently watching every top prospect in both NCAA and summer league. You can really get to know a prospect by watching a player repeatedly in a number of situations.

Since then I haven’t been watching as much, but I still believe there is enough available information to make decent broad strokes predictions between stats, scouting reports, youtube videos, etc.

My goal moving forward will be to be wrong as infrequently as possible. While it’s impossible to be right about everything, it’s easy to not be wrong by simply not taking firm positions when the answer is uncertain. I will still inevitably miss the mark plenty of times, but but by being more humble about the limits of my prediction capabilities the misses should grow to be less frequent and less severe over time.

Let’s see how the next 6 years compare to the first 6!

Draft Reactions

22 Thursday Jun 2017

Posted by deanondraft in Miscellaneous

≈ Leave a comment

Winners

Los Angeles Lakers:
2. Lonzo Ball
27. Kyle Kuzma
30. Josh Hart
42. Thomas Bryant

After a questionable trade of D’Angelo Russell prior to the draft, Magic Johnson and Rob Pelinka absolutely crushed their first draft ever.

Lonzo Ball was the best pick in the draft– both Boston and Philadelphia had the option to take him and both opted for inferior players, and the Lakers ended up with the #1.

Kyle Kuzma has appeal as a tall, fluid, point forward who is rumored to be better at shooting than his NCAA stats suggest. He was a solid choice at #28.

Then Magic channeled his inner Hinkie to trade #28 to Utah (who drafted Tony Bradley) for a nice haul of #30 who he used on one of my favorite sleepers in Josh Hart as well as Thomas Bryant at #42. Bryant will struggle to survive defensively as a pro, but he had good stats and is a decent flier in the mid-2nd.

Toronto Raptors
23. OG Anunoby

A 19 year old freak with Kawhi’s physical profile tears his ACL, and he drops all way to 23 because of it. Yes, he is raw offensively and may never be decent on that end. But I had him as the #9 prospect and he has far more upside than most of the players that were taken ahead of him. He should not have slid outside of the lottery.

San Antonio Spurs
29. Derrick White
59. Jaron Blossomgame

Every year the Spurs take a guy that I rate as a late 1st steal, and every year it makes me second guess whether I didn’t rate him highly enough. White does a little bit of everything, as he has legit point guard skills to create his own shot at the rim, pass, shoot, and he’s a great shot blocker with SG size. Easy to see him as a big steal.

Blossomgame is fine at #59 but this draft is all about White.

Portland Trailblazers
10. Zach Collins
26. Caleb Swanigan

The Blazers had a pretty good night as traded #15 and #20 for my clear best player available at #10 in Zach Collins, and then also took my best player available at #26 in Caleb Swanigan.

Factoring in Jusuf Nurkic’s, they are a bit heavy on bigs but it is no matter. They have plenty of room to develop all three and then decide who to hold and who to deal.

Orlando Magic
6. Jonathan Isaac
33. Wesley Iwundu

Isaac was a great steal at #6 and the 2nd best value pick in the draft after Ball. This alone makes Orlando’s night great.

And it better because the rest of their draft was weak. They traded #25 for an OKC 2020 top 20 protected 1st, reached for Wesley Iwundu at #33, and then traded #35 for something.

Golden State Warriors
38. Jordan Bell

Of course the best team makes the best possible use of $3.5M to buy into the second round and draft a great value and perfect fit. Bell is an incredibly versatile defensive piece who can do it all from protect the rim to switch onto LeBron. He’s raw offensively but he fits well on GSW’s shooting heavy roster.

Losers

Chicago Bulls: Jimmy Butler and #16 (Justin Patton) for #7 (Lauri Markkannen), Zach LaVine, and Kris Dunn

I don’t know how the Timberwolves convinced them to send #16 back for a package centered around Lauri Markkanen, Zach LaVine, and Kris Dunn. Kris Dunn is a 23 year old defensive specialist at PG who posted an 8.1 rookie PER, and is worth about a late 1st pick. LaVine has developed into a solid offensive threat, but is still hardly a centerpiece for the deal.

I had Markkanen as the best player available at #7, but that’s after the draft fell off a cliff with the 6 great talents off the board. He should be a useful role player with a bit of sneaky upside, but he’s too one dimensional to be a justifiable centerpiece for Butler.

The fact that the Bulls sent #16 back is just insanity. They got crushed in the deal for just #7, LaVine, and Dunn, and somehow Minny convinced them they were getting such a great haul they needed to balance it out by throwing back a mid-1st.

Of course Minnesota completely blew the pick on Justin Patton, a big reach who doesn’t fit with KAT. But Minny is nevertheless a clear winner and Chicago is a big loser.

Boston Celtics: 3. Jayson Tatum
Philadelphia 76ers: 1. Markelle Fultz

It’s hard to say who will look better on the Fultz for Tatum and LAL/SAC pick swap. I may slightly favor Boston, simply because Tatum gets to play for Brad Stevens while Fultz is stuck fighting for touches on a team over indexed on ball dominant players. But overall the deal is close, and it could go either way.

Where both teams failed is that they both had the chance to draft Lonzo Ball, and they both failed. The #1 pick is a crucial decision for the franchise, and neither team made the correct choice here.

They also picked other guys later, but who cares. Both teams had access to a stud at #1, and both teams blew it.

New York Knicks
8. Frank Ntilikina
44. Damyean Dotson
58. Ognen Jaramaz

The Knicks got off to a bad start when Phil Jackson publicly suggested that Kristaps Porzingis needs to be traded, then failed to do so.

Then he reached for Frank Ntilikina with Dennis Smith Jr. at #9 and Zach Collins at #10 being clearly superior options. Damyean Dotson isn’t good value at #44, and I don’t know who Ognen Jaramaz is but I highly doubt he redeems the draft whatsoever.

The Knicks are a joke. They have an awful owner who is paying a senile Phil Jackson $12M/year to throw his stars under the bus and make awful decisions, and they are going to stay awful as long as Dolan owns the team. The rest of the NBA is rapidly getting smarter while Dolan stays as out of touch as ever, and as bad as I feel for Knicks fans I would just quit.

If I lived in NY, I’d start caring more about Brooklyn as they are somehow rebuilding faster without having any veteran talent or draft picks.

Detroit Pistons
12. Luke Kennard

Stan Van Gundy is really struggling to both GM and coach the Pistons. If he wanted a quality role playing SG, Donovan Mitchell was on the board as the glaringly obvious best option. There was also a slew of more interesting players at other positions.

Instead he took a one dimensional shooter who doesn’t have the tools to defend anybody in the NBA, but at least he has great intangibles.

Detroit is doomed until they find somebody new to build the roster.

Milwaukee Bucks
17. DJ Wilson
46. Sterling Brown

Jon Horst had his first draft as Bucks GM, and DJ Wilson is not an inspiring first decision. He is tall, long, can shoot, and move, but doesn’t really stuff the statsheet in any bulk category and does not feel like a sharp pick at #17 with players like OG Anunoby, John Collins, Harry Giles, and many other better gambles on the board.

It’s not super harmful, just bodes ill for the future given that Horst was a questionable hire to begin with.

Malik Monk Is On Permanent Fire

25 Sunday Dec 2016

Posted by deanondraft in Uncategorized

≈ 11 Comments

Tags

JJ Redick, JR Smith, lol Calipari, Malik Monk, Reggie Miller, Stephen Curry

malik-monk-ftr-121716jpg_11hfff0g2wxq61q3618vvdy10r

For every incoming freshman class, it is fun to make predictions based on the biases of traditional scouts. Malik Monk’s scouting report was that he was an athletic scorer who did not play defense and took poor shots. Scouts highly value athleticism and scoring and are willing to overlook poor defense and basketball IQ in prospects that have both strengths. Given that Monk was only rated #9 RSCI, he seemed like a strong candidate to bust. After all, he had a similar profile to Malik Newman who was similarly rated and completely flopped last year.

But this year’s class apparently only includes good prospects, and Monk has led Kentucky to a great start with his surprisingly efficient scoring. Basketball twitter is still abound with skeptics of his NBA upside, as his lack of size, point guard skills, ability to get to the rim, and defense seemingly preclude him from becoming an NBA star. After all– how valuable is elite athleticism if it does not lead to good defense or slashing ability?

The common comparison for Monk is JR Smith as a player who is mostly a floor spacer in spite of his great athleticism, as he lacks the ball skills and smarts to capitalize on his physical ability. I was initially on board, as they share similar strengths and limitations and it overall felt reasonable.

But Monk kept making shots and Kentucky kept playing well. When outcomes badly fail to align with a prediction, there is often an outlier force that my initial prediction underrated. Intuitively it felt wrong to continue to fade Monk, and that more attention should be given to what he can do rather than what he cannot do.

Let’s Not Be Redickulous

Monk had an elite combination of volume and efficiency in AAU, he has an elite combination thus far in NCAA, so why would he not continue the trend in the NBA?

There are a few reasons– first his NCAA sample is small against many weak teams, and it he may not continue to shoot fireballs against superior competition. He heavily relies on transition scoring, and those opportunities wane as competition levels increase. But then you compare his freshman statistics per 100 possessions to those of another common comp: JJ Redick:

	REB	AST	TOV	STL	BLK
Redick	4.4	3.6	2.8	2.0	0.1
Monk	4.3	4	3.4	1.9	0.6

They are strikingly similar. The main difference is that Monk has more blocks due to his greater athleticism, but Redick used his smarts to keep pace on steals and both players are allergic to rebounds. Now shooting and scoring:

	2PA	2P%	3PA	3P%	FTA	FT%	Pts
Redick	6.6	43.9%	12.8	39.9%	6.0	91.9%	26.6
Monk	14.3	58.8%	14.6	39.4%	4.6	83.9%	37.8

Redick has the better FT% and surprisingly FT rate. But Monk has a slightly higher 3PA rate, and then there is the glaring advantage in 2 point volume and efficiency. This is especially impressive in tandem with Monk’s turnover rate.

Yes, much of that goodness will wane as he translates to NBA competition, but there is a whole lot of goodness there, and it will not go away altogether.

For starters, Monk will be one of the best transition scorers in the NBA. He will not be able to solely depend on this, but his athleticism, instincts, and shot making mean that he will be as productive as anybody in the league and this will pad his overall efficiency. This may in part explain his low defensive rebound rate, as he is likely leaking out a ton, so it comes at a cost. But it is nevertheless a feature that should not be ignored.

He’s On (Permanent) Fire!

The interesting part is that Monk may become the 2nd best pull up jump shooter in NBA history behind Steph Curry. His synergy shooting splits are a wonderland (C&S = catch and shoot):

	Poss	Pts	PPP	Pctile
C&S Guarded	43	62	1.44	88
C&S Unguarded	16	20	1.25	56
Pullup Jumpers	39	44	1.13	88
Short J’s (< 17′)	14	14	1.00	81
Medium J’s	17	22	1.29	98
3 Point J’s	72	99	1.38	87

He is fireballs from everywhere, except unguarded catch and shoot jumpers where he is merely average on a smaller sample.

Some of the difficult shot making is not sustainable, but even with a fair bit of regression he is still clearly special talent. The percentile ranks are in comparison to players with a lower volume of attempts on average, and there is no precedent of such a young player playing such an inefficient style with such an efficient outcome.

screen-shot-2015-04-10-at-10-09-41-am

Meanwhile, coach Cal says: “I’m trying to say get to the foul line. Go to the line more, don’t just shoot all perimeter jumpers. He’s such a great athlete and he’s so good with the ball, why settle? I know it’s easier and he goes on a run of making 7 in a row, but they can’t guard him when he goes to the basket.”

Calipari also wanted Monk to drive it down 2 with 20 seconds left, but fortunately his player was smart enough to shoot a 3 that went in to give Kentucky the lead and eventual victory. His coach is somehow completely ignorant of his player’s strengths and optimal usage, which only makes it more exciting to imagine Monk in the hands of a good NBA coach.

But Can He Create?

Monk cannot create offense by slashing to the rim like most guards, but he can create it by converting shots that are inefficient for mortal guards. This is where his athleticism *might* serve its greatest function, as it gives him the *possible* ability to get off a high volume of attempts without a drastically lower percentage of conversions. I include the qualifiers because I am not certain that a player of his limited handle can continue to shoot so well off the dribble, but his athleticism could be the key ingredient to make it sustainable.

Monk’s playmaking ability remains in question, but he does have a decent assist rate for a player who shares the backcourt with two pure point guards in Isaiah Briscoe and De’Aaron Fox. His pass button and vision do not appear to be broken, so it is feasible that he does develop into a solid playmaker at the NBA level.

If he can 1) create offense for himself and others in the half court 2) be a blur in transition and 3) be a dynamite floor spacer, that adds up to quite the offensive weapon. And given his fantastic athleticism there is some hope for him to develop a semblance of a slashing game.

Limitations

newyorkknicksvlosangelesclippersq3vsf8p-uwql

The downside is that it cannot be taken for granted he will continue to make shots at an insane rate. In 2015 AAU he only shot 35% from 3 and 79% FT. His Kentucky sample is still extremely small, and even after a full season his NBA shooting will be difficult to predict. Buddy Hield just had a full NCAA season of elite volume shooting and is struggling to convert 3’s in the NBA. And with Monk’s defense and rebounding likely being bad, there is significant pressure on him becoming great offensively to justify a top 10 draft selection.

If Monk proves to be a good but not great shooter, then he is merely JR Smith, except shorter, worse at rebounding, and probably worse on defense. Not an ideal outcome.

Even if he is an elite shooter, there are no guarantees for his playmaking and creation abilities. It is possible that his off the dribble shooting thus far is a fluke, and will never be great because of his limited ball handling ability. He could be JJ Redick with more athleticism, less intelligence, and overall similar value.

My favorite comparison is Reggie Miller with less height and more athleticism. They both share elite shooting, terrible rebounding, and a knack for overall efficient offensive play. Reggie Miller was never a mega-star, but he was the best player on some good Pacers teams and a highly favorable outcome outside the top 3.

And Miller is not his absolute upside. There is some scenario where his shot improves at an outlier rate and he becomes almost as good of a shooter as Stephen Curry, with his athleticism compensating for his inferior skill level. This is an unlikely outcome, but there is some happy medium in between Miller and Curry that is attainable if things break right for Monk.

Bottom Line

636179936231847064-uk-malik-monk

Monk is nowhere near guaranteed to become a star, and even if he does his upside is not quite boundless. His warts are real, and they cannot be ignored as they would be a deal breaker for lottery consideration for almost any other similar prospect. Thus I do not believe he belongs in the top 3 conversation with Fultz, Ball, and Jackson.

But if anybody is going to overcome those warts to attain greatness, it will be somebody with outlier strengths like Monk with his elite intersection of shooting volume, shooting efficiency, and athleticism. There is no precedent of a prospect with a superior combination of these traits, and they could synergize to create an upside tail that exceeds any reasonable projection.

Ultimately Malik Monk is a unique talent, and if he remotely sustains his early shooting performance, he will clearly deserve a top 10 selection and could rank as high as the #4 player in the draft. This is a rare case where the hype for a one dimensional athletic scorer may actually be justified.

An Objective Assessment of Andrew Wiggins

12 Monday Dec 2016

Posted by deanondraft in Uncategorized

≈ 26 Comments

I recently posted that Andrew Wiggins is a bust, and it received a couple bits of criticism that I would rate as fair:

Even if flawed he is contributing enough to avoid a bust label
Just because advanced stats do not love him do not mean he cannot be good

I would like to follow up on these points as I agree with both, and prefer that the main points of my writeup do not get lost due to my manner of presentation.

Is Wiggins Really a Bust?

e4a2c8391371245a142cd14c74ea2585_crop_north

It depends on your definition of the word. The most common interpretation has been that a bust is a high pick who is worthless at the NBA level, and Andrew Wiggins scores 22 points per game at an acceptable efficiency. By that definition, I would agree that my label of him as a bust is harsh and inaccurate.

Most people cited Anthony Bennett as an example of a bust, as he was picked #1 and was truly awful. I would agree that Andrew Wiggins is an infinitely better NBA player, and I would never group the two in terms of overall badness. But there are a few key aspects that set the expectations of each player apart.

Bennett was not even expected to go top 5 overall in a weak draft. There was no consensus that he was a great prospect, he only happened to go #1 because of a unique combination of horrible decision making by Cleveland and a weak crop of other choices. In a regular draft he is a run of the mill mid-late 1st round flop.

Wiggins entered high school with expectations of being a generational prospect of LeBron’s caliber. Those expectations had been lowered a notch after a good but not great freshman season at Kansas, but he was still considered an acceptable prize for tanking. Further, he was taken over Joel Embiid who had clear hall of fame level upside in spite of injury flags.

Missing Upside Hurts More Than Hitting Downside

The point of drafting #1 is to draft a superstar. The Cavaliers made a grave error in drafting Anthony Bennett, but they are only hurt by missing out on the best realistic alternative. The franchise does not suffer extra negative points for drafting the worst #1 pick of all time as opposed to a regular bust, as they can simply waive him and move on as the Cavs did.

To put this in perspective– would you rather start a franchise with Andrew Wiggins and Otto Porter, or just Joel Embiid? Even with a substantial risk that Embiid cannot stay healthy enough to make an impact, he is the clear choice as he has franchise changing upside that is not found in the other two players.

Andrew Wiggins is not a bust based on consensus interpretation of the word. But he is nevertheless on track to significant disappointment relative to expectations, and may be a more costly mistake than taking Bennett #1 overall, even though Bennett was the much more obviously wrong choice both at the time and in retrospect.

Advanced Statistics vs The Eye Test

hi-res-7063070_crop_north

The other issue with Wiggins is that in spite of lackluster advanced stats, the facts remain: he is 21 years old, averaging 22 pts/game, and is 6’8″ and can jump through the roof. In spite of whatever shortcomings he has with BPM or RPM, it is too soon to write him off altogether. I agree with this, as similar players Rudy Gay and DeMar DeRozan have taken big leaps after flawed outputs early in their career to become useful NBA players.

But Rudy Gay and DeMar DeRozan are still not big time positive impact players, as their strengths are still outweighed by the weaknesses that plagued them early in their careers.

On the other hand, the players who became true stars showed clear signs of stardom but their 3rd year. Entering draft night, expectations for Wiggins had been lowered from the next LeBron or Durant to the next Paul George or Kawhi Leonard. But Kawhi won finals MVP in his third season and Paul George led the Pacers within one win of the finals. Andrew Wiggins is by most statistical indications still a below average player early in his third year.

Advanced statistics are not precise measures of truth, but they are signs that point in the direction of the truth. And in this case, they highlight the key flaws that separate Wiggins from genuine stars.

Does Wiggins Really Eye Test Well?

The hype of being an elite prospect never jived with my eye test. There were too many things wrong with Wiggins. Yes, he is 6’8″ and super athletic with a decent enough skill set. But he was visually grating in a number of ways that made him feel unlikely to be a true stud.

First, he has a choppy lack of smoothness to his game. I posted about how he struggled to finish at the rim in college, which stood out as a surprising flaw for a player with his athleticism. Even if he has improved, he remains an average shot maker which has prevented him from complementing his shot creation skills with high efficiency.

He also does not see the floor that well. His vision is not awful, but it is limited enough to prevent him from consistently creating for others, racking up steals, or making a defensive impact commensurate to his physical gifts.

His third problem is the most difficult to pinpoint, but something seems to be lacking in his intangibles. He lacks some combination of motor, competitiveness, toughness, and work ethic that clearly affects his play.

But You Cannot Quantify Intangibles!

True, but there are subtle quantitative hints at intangibles. A few things stood out about Wiggins pre-draft:

He was hyped as next LeBron and came in as a good but not great NCAA freshman. This is a MASSIVE disappointment as LeBron would have been godlike if he played a year of NCAA. This hinted that Wiggins was more broken than people realized or he was not developing well. Either way: not a good sign.
From 17 year old hoop Summit to 18 year old he grew an inch but only gained two pounds. This suggests that either his body was bad at developing muscle or he had not been working hard in the gym. Again: not good either way.
He looked like he was going through the motions on defense rather than intensely engaged in getting a stop like Marcus Smart or Aaron Gordon. I wrote about how my Smart vs Wiggins eye test could be supported numerically in 2014.

Now that he is in the NBA:

In his 3rd NBA season at age 21, he is listed just 2 pounds heavier than his 18 year old weight. Does he even lift? I am not certain this is a reliable predictor, but DX called his frame “great”, “terrific”, and “amazing” at various junctures in high school. Then pre-draft they changed their tune to: “His frame is on the narrow side, but will undoubtedly fill out as he matures.” Now he is listed at 199 pounds, and it is hard to find many examples of great NBA players in his height range listed with such a light weight. For whatever reason, his frame is filling out at a much slower rate than expected.
He has a pathetic rebound rate for a hyper athletic 6’8″ player. Before you chalk this up to KAT and Dieng hogging the boards, consider that it is worse than his point guard teammates: Kris Dunn, Ricky Rubio, and Tyus Jones. It is fair to take his lackluster steal, block, and dRPM rates with a grain of salt, but the anemic rebounding cannot be overlooked as an alarming wart.
For context– Stephen Curry’s physical profile is so lacking that he was not even recruited by major NCAA schools in spite of his elite skill level. On the other hand, Wiggins was chosen #1 overall in spite of his flawed skill and instincts because of his physical profile. And even though Curry remains vastly physically inferior at 5 inches shorter with infinitely less athleticism, he STILL has a superior career rebound rate to Wiggins. If Wiggins’ physical profile still offers great upside, shouldn’t he at least dominate tiny non-athletes such as Steph Curry or Tyus Jones at a physical aspect of the game such as rebounding? If he cannot even leverage his tools to become a merely competent rebounder, how can he be expected to leverage them into being great overall?
His statistical improvements since entering the league are marginal, at best.

The caveat is that none of this directly proves that he has bad intangibles. But taken in tandem, it strongly implies that there is some negative force consistently bogging down his production. The bottom line is that he was lauded as the next LeBron at age 18, and at age 21 he is arguably no more valuable than a replacement player– how can there not be something seriously wrong with him to fall THAT short of expectations at every level?

Does any of this prove that he will not be a good NBA player?

No, of course not. He is a decent volume scorer and has a slightly above average PER, as his elite athleticism immensely helps him create offense. And it enables him to be physically capable of defending a star player such as James Harden when he is engaged on defense, and he is still only 21.

Even though he has not taken a leap yet, there is no proof that there will be no future leap for him. After all he can be rather useful with some minor improvements. Uptick his shooting percentages, trim his TOVs a bit, and progress his defense toward average and he is now a useful NBA player.

It is not difficult to envision these progressions, which is a major reason why it was harsh calling him a bust. He is already not terrible and he has a clear path to becoming an average starter. Even if his work ethic is lacking, he does not need to improve THAT much to achieve decency.

That said, there is a huge gap between being a useful but flawed player such as DeRozan and a top 15 star, and it already requires a decent amount of optimism to project Wiggins to DeRozan status. If we want to turn the optimism up further, we could compare him to Joe Johnson, who also struggled in his first 3 years and never rebounded well. But to reach top 15 status Wiggins has to blaze his own trail and become the example of a player who overcomes major early statistical warts to achieve greatness. Given his outlier athleticism, it is fair to assign a non-zero chance of this happening. But is it really that much higher than zero?

We are talking about a player who has fallen well short of expectations at every level since entering prospect radar. We are talking about a guy who cannot outrebound much smaller players who can barely jump half as high. Is he really the guy that you want to bet on to suddenly turn it around and become the outlier of exceeding expectations? Perhaps it is possible, but I am definitely not betting on it.

The Upside Quandary

One problem is that people often equate athleticism with upside. Yes, they are correlated but it is not a 100% correlation. Not many people believed that Nikola Jokic had a great upside pre-draft because he was so slow and unathletic, but now it appears that he does have upside based on his size, skill level, and outlier good instincts. Thus he slid to round 2, and at this juncture he is drastically more likely to become a top 15 player than Wiggins.

And this is for good reason– it is easy to perceive athleticism, and it is clearly an important trait toward becoming a valuable NBA player. It is difficult to quantify and perceive subtle qualities such as instincts and intangibles, so those are often undervalued and players such as Draymond Green, Paul Millsap, Nikola Jokic, and many others slide all the way to the second round.

This was the point of the statistical comparison in my initial post. Poor BPM and RPM do not prove that Wiggins is a replacement player or worse, or that he cannot improve to quality player. But the players who became great had multiple clear statistical signals showing that they were on the path to greatness. It is time to start seriously worrying about Wiggins lack of these signals, especially when they align with qualitative fears that were evident before he played an NBA game.

Conclusion

ku10

I do not believe that Wiggins is a bust in the traditional sense of the word, and I do regret putting that in the title as it does not precisely describe what I meant by it.

But I do believe that he is extremely unlikely to become a star, and that it was clearly a major error to draft him ahead of a generational talent such as Joel Embiid, even with Embiid carrying significant injury risk. Anthony Bennett was a bigger bust than Wiggins, but Wiggins may prove to be a more costly pick (in a theoretical world where the Cavs did not trade him). Embiid has already shown many more quantifiable signs of greatness in 15 NBA games than Wiggins has in 187. He is an outlier at stuffing the stat sheet, and he passes the eye test in a way that Wiggins does not with better instincts, greater non-scoring impact, and a million times more smoothness and coordination.

I also believe Aaron Gordon is clearly superior. Even if he is off to a rough start in his third season, it cannot be overlooked that he was much better in nearly three times as many minutes last year. His overall statistical profile is clearly much better than Wiggins, and his physical tools are not far behind, if at all.

I may be wrong about this, but I would still rather gamble on Marcus Smart than Wiggins. Smart has failed to develop into an offensively competent player, which is particularly harmful for a 6’4″ guard. But he is so good defensively that if he ever makes a mini-leap in his offensive efficiency, he has such an easy path to usefulness.

I controversially ranked Clint Capela ahead of Wiggins, and I stand by that ranking. Capela is a freak athlete in his own rite, and he at least has some statistical signals of goodness thus far.

I will amend my prior statement– it is too soon to call Andrew Wiggins a bust. But it’s not too soon to call him an example of the NBA draft hype machine missing the mark, and it’s not too soon to call his selection over Joel Embiid a major error.

Andrew Wiggins is a Bust

29 Tuesday Nov 2016

Posted by deanondraft in Uncategorized

≈ 85 Comments

wigginsrest2

At age 21 Andrew Wiggins still has a long NBA career ahead of him, and a significant amount of time to improve his game. But with two full seasons and ~20% of a third under his belt, we have a substantial sample to assess the early returns on his NBA goodness.

It is fair to avoid extreme conclusion jumping after a player’s rookie season, but most stars show signs of their greatness in their second and third seasons, which will be the focus of this analysis. Let’s start with the rosiest statistical lense for Wiggins: PER. PER is the least predictive catchall statistic, and it overrates players who are precisely in Wiggins’s mold: high volume of shots at mediocre efficiency and little other value. First let’s compare him to the stud defensive wings with whom he was favorably compared pre-draft:

Player	Y2	Y3
Leonard	16.4	19.4
Deng	15.8	18.7
Iguodala	14.8	18.1
George	16.5	16.8
Metta	13.6	15.8
Wiggins	16.5	15.7

He is dead last in season 3, but that is a smaller sample than year 2 where he was clustered with Paul George and Kawhi Leonard for the top spot. He has plenty of time to rise to the middle of the pack in year 3 with 65 games remaining, and overall this looks not bad for him. But you also see the limitations with PER when a player like Luol Deng is rated similarly to Kawhi Leonard and Paul George, and this isn’t an apples to apples comparison when Wiggins has a higher usage than any of these types. Now let’s compare him to wing stars who actually took shots:

LeBron	25.7	28.1
Durant	20.8	26.2
Carter	23.4	25
Pierce	19.8	22.3
Carmelo	16.7	22
McGrady	20.6	20
Wiggins	16.5	15.7
Gay	17.4	15.3

In year two Wiggins was in last place, and in year three he so far trails every player except Rudy Gay. Further, Rudy Gay had a lower usage over the same span (25.3 vs 27.6), which implies less artificial PER padding. This should not be surprising to anyone who read my comparison of Wiggins to Rudy Gay from July 2014.

In year two he was in last place and in year three he trails everybody other than Rudy Gay by a huge margin. Further, Rudy Gay actually had a lower usage over the span (25.3 vs 27.6), which implies less artificial PER padding.

Overall the most optimistic lense does not look all that promising for Wiggins.

Now let’s look at WS/48 which places greater value on efficiency and team success. There’s no need to cluster scorers any more since WS does not have any biases toward high usage:

Durant	0.132	0.238
LeBron	0.203	0.232
Leonard	0.166	0.193
Deng	0.12	0.176
Carmelo	0.09	0.153
George	0.148	0.145
McGrady	0.143	0.129
Iguodala	0.116	0.12
Metta	0.039	0.079
Wiggins	0.069	0.059
Gay	0.08	0.054

Now all of the defense first types other than Metta World Peace have zoomed ahead of him. Other than Metta, Wiggins has Rudy Gay once again keeping him company at the bottom.

The most predictive metric to be found on basketball reference’s stat page is BPM. It highly values the intersection of rebounding and assists, as players who do both tend to be good and players who do neither tend to be bad. Intuitively it makes sense, as anybody who has the intersection of physical ability required to rebound and mental ability and skill level to accrue assists is probably good. Unfortunately Wiggins is bad at both, and this paints him in the most pessimistic light:

Player	Y2	Y3
LeBron	8.3	9.3
Leonard	3.9	5.8
Durant	1.8	5.1
George	3.9	4.7
Iguodala	2.1	3.4
McGrady	4	3.2
Metta	-0.7	2.9
Deng	0.9	2.7
Carmelo	-1.2	1.5
Gay	0.8	-1.4
Wiggins	-2.1	-4

Now this ordering makes the most sense. LeBron stands out as the superduperstar that he is, and the defensive stars finally get their due for their impact on that side of the ball. Kawhi Leonard won finals MVP in his third seasons and Paul George led the Pacers within one win of the NBA finals, which are examples of how BPM is much more reflective of the truth than PER.

Even Rudy Gay scoffs at Andrew Wiggins’ BPM. Wiggins does almost *nothing* other than score with limited efficiency, and BPM illuminates the myriad holes in his statistical profile. In his 2nd season he was approximately a replacement player, now early in his 3rd year he has been twice as bad as a replacement player.

Of course this is the most negative perspective from which to view Wiggins– but it is interesting food for thought. Everybody always assumed his downside was a better version of Rudy Gay, but what if he is actually a worse version of Rudy Gay?

What about RPM?

The only remaining argument is that Wiggins statistics may undersell his defensive impact, as his athleticism and quickness gives him the ability to prevent easy shots even when he is not racking up blocks and steals. But his defensive real plus minus this year is -2.4 and last year was -1.8, which implies that he is extremely bad on that end. This should not be surprising to anybody who read my pre-draft analysis that Wiggins was not a guaranteed defensive stud.

The upside is that his offensive RPM is slightly positive in both samples, so his overall RPM’s have been -1.2 last year and -2.1 this year. Since his year 2 is the bigger sample, that overall puts him above replacement but clearly below average. I believe this is a reasonable approximation of the truth.

But stats do not tell the whole story!

This is true, but even if he is secretly better than the stats portray, it is hard to find a perspective showing he is on the path to greatness. Every great player had some *clear* indication that they were on the path to greatness by now. Even most fringe all-stars had much better indicators at this stage.

The best source of hope is DeMar DeRozan, who has a similar physical profile and game to Wiggins. He was slightly weaker in PER, WS/48, and BPM in his first 3 seasons, and while he is a good athlete drafted in the lottery, he does not compare to Wiggins’s #1 overall elite athleticism. Both players thrive off of mid-range scoring and drawing free throws. If Wiggins follows DeRozan’s outlier developmental curve, he should peak as a slightly superior version of DeRozan.

But is it truly a happy outcome if he becomes DeRozan? Toronto had to max DeRozan to keep him around, and many intelligent people would argue that this was an unfavorable contract for him. If Wiggins becomes a better version, he may be worth the max by a hair, but that is also a highly optimistic outcome.

Conclusion

At this stage Andrew Wiggins is clearly not on the path to greatness. He has no chance of becoming a top 10 player, and the optimistic comparison is akin to DeMar DeRozan or something slightly better. This is a dreadful upside scenario for a former #1 overall pick.

It was clearly a massive mistake to draft him #1 overall with a generational talent such as Joel Embiid on the board. While Embiid’s ability to stay healthy long term remains in question, it is clearly a more worthwhile gamble than hoping Wiggins magically becomes good at basketball.

I believe that ranking him #7 on my 2014 final big board has been vindicated as a fair ranking.

The value of a #1 pick lies in the star potential of the player chosen, and thus far Wiggins has shown close to zero star upside. It is time to stop treating Wiggins as a potential star– at this point he is a just a super athlete who has a sliver of NBA upside that will not be franchise changing. Even if he may go on to have a decent career, given his draft hype and #1 overall selection it is not too soon to say that Andrew Wiggins is officially a bust.

	deanondraft on 2023 Draft Mid-Season Boa…
	cloudsean on 2023 Draft Mid-Season Boa…
	deanondraft on Summer League Scouting: Cade…
	Nobleyute on Summer League Scouting: Cade…
	deanondraft on Should NBA Teams Worry about B…

Dean On Draft

~ NBA Draft Analysis

Category Archives: Uncategorized

How Good Are the Thompson Twins?

The Downside of Upside

Jalen Green vs. Franz Wagner: How Much Should Creation Be Valued?

How good is Scottie Barnes?

2020 Draft Guide

Draft Predictions Retrospective

Draft Reactions

Malik Monk Is On Permanent Fire

An Objective Assessment of Andrew Wiggins

Andrew Wiggins is a Bust